Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Union Of India vs D C Chandigarh on 19 March, 2024
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039324
2024:PHHC:039324
-1-
FAO-918-1990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
133 FAO-918-1990 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...Appellants
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present:- Mr. Arun Gosain, Sr. Govt. Counsel,
for the UOI-appellants.
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Parul, Advocate and
Mr. D.L.Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents No.2, 5, 7, 10 to 13, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 40
to 42.
****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
CM-3276-CII-2020
1. Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.
Annexure A-1 is taken on record.
FAO-918-1990
2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated
23.03.1990 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-District & Sessions Judge,
Chandigarh, vide which solatium and interest has been awarded to the
respondents.
3. The facts as available on record are that the land measuring
342 kanals 16 marlas was requisitioned in the year 1964. Subsequently, the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039324
2024:PHHC:039324
FAO-918-1990
same was acquired on 08.03.1973. Although, the private respondents had
requested for referring the matter to the Arbitrator for re-determining the
compensation of the land acquired by the Government for the use of
Defence Authorities, however, the Arbitrator was actually appointed on
19.09.1988. The Arbitrator awarded the compensation @ Rs.58,000/- per
acre. Besides the value compensation, the Arbitrator also awarded solatium
@ 30 per cent and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year of the
acquisition as possession was already with the Union of India and @ 15%
per annum thereafter till realization. Challenging the said Award, the
present appeal has been filed.
4. Arguing the case, counsel for the appellants has submitted that
since the acquisition was under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, and there is no provision for the grant of solatium
under the said Act, therefore, the private respondents-land owners could
not have been granted the solatium and interest, as could be awarded under
a different Act, namely, Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that the Arbitrator had relied upon the judgment
rendered in case of 'Union of India Vs. Amar Singh and others'.
However, the said case was ultimately taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in appeal bearing SLP No.11873-74 of 1989 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, vide order dated 01.12.1994, had declined the benefit of solatium
and interest in the case of Amar Singh (supra). Hence, the private
respondents-land owners are not entitled to the said benefits. To the same
effect, counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Union of India Vs. Hari Krishan Khosla
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039324
2024:PHHC:039324
FAO-918-1990
(1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents
No.2, 5, 7, 10 to 13, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 40 to 42-land owners has submitted
that the solatium and interest have rightly been granted by the Arbitrator.
Even in the case of Hari Krishan Khosla (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had upheld the grant of solatium and interest in those cases wherein
the Arbitrator was appointed after a significant delay. To the same effect,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced the judgments in the cases of
Dilawar Singh and others etc. Vs. Union of India and others 2012(3)
RCR (Civil) 16 and Defence Estate Officer Vs. Syed Abdul Saleem
and others 2015(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 1048. Hence, the present appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, this Court finds that the property involved in the
present case was requisitioned by the appellants in the year 1964.
Thereafter, the land was actually acquired on 08.03.1973. The Arbitrator
was appointed in the matter on 19.09.1988. Therefore, there has been an
extreme protraction of the entire process by the appellant-authorities.
Hence, the case of the private respondents-land owners is squarely covered
by the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawar
Singh and others (supra) and Defence Estate Officer (supra), as well as,
by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Hari Krishan Khosla (supra). Since the respondents have been
granted the benefits only in accordance with the law enunciated in the
above-said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, this Court
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039324
2024:PHHC:039324
FAO-918-1990
does not find any ground to interfere in the matter.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with costs.
8. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
19.03.2024 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
