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 of 3
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 of 3
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 of 3
