Union Of India vs Satya Devi

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6237 P&H
Judgement Date : 19 March, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India vs Satya Devi on 19 March, 2024

Author: Rajbir Sehrawat

Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039072
FAO No.141 of 1989 (O&M)                               2024:PHHC:039072



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
132
                                       FAO No.141 of 1989 (O&M)
                             DATE OF DECISION: 19th MARCH, 2024

Union of India and others
                                                             .... Appellants
                                    Versus
Satya Devi                                                 .... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present:     None for the parties.

                                   ****

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. There is no representation on behalf of either of the parties despite the intimation having been sent to the respective counsels for the parties.

2. A perusal of the case file shows that the case pertains to acquisition of land of the respondent by the appellants under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The award was passed by the Collector for grant of compensation to the respondent. However, feeling dis-satisfied with the said award, the respondent had moved for seeking a reference to the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, wherein the respondent had sought payment of Rs.500/- per marla alongwith solatium and interest as the compensation.

3. The parties led their respective evidence, including the evidence led by the respondent to the effect that the land of another land owner who was co-sharer in the same khewat was acquired by Govt. of India in the same year and the compensation, was paid at the rate of -1- 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2024 00:26:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039072 FAO No.141 of 1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:039072 Rs.400/- per marla. The land owners who were paid Rs.400/- per marla as the compensation were part of the same khewat in which the land involved in the present appeal is comprised. Even, the appeal filed against those awards passed by the Arbitrator had been dismissed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Arbitrator has assessed the amount of compensation to be Rs.400/- per marla uniformly. Still further, the Arbitrator relied upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Hari Kishan Khosla Versus Union of India and others, 1974 PLR 658, to hold that the respondent was also entitled to solatium and interest as payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite the fact that the acquisition in the present case was under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. In the above said case although Supreme Court reversed the judgment of Full Court qua some aspect, however, still the solatium and interest was allowed under certain situation. Accordingly, the Arbitrator has granted Rs.400/- per marla, along with solatium at the rate of 30% and the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years as the compensation. Challenging the said award, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

4. This court is deprived of any assistance from the side of the appellants. Otherwise, keeping in view of the fact that the land owners in the same khewat as is involved in the present case were granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per marla, this Court does not find any ground to interfere so far as the value of the land assessed by the Arbitrator is concerned. So far as the grant of solatium and the interest is -2- 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2024 00:26:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039072 FAO No.141 of 1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:039072 concerned, the matter already stands settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Kishan Khosla (supra), as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with costs.

6. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.





                                                  (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
     th
19 MARCH, 2024                                          JUDGE
'Sandeep'


          Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes         No
          Whether Reportable:                     Yes         No




                                           -3-
                                  3 of 3
               ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2024 00:26:45 :::