Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India vs Dalip Singh on 26 September, 2024
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 26.09.2024
1. FAO-94-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
DALIP SINGH ..Respondent
2. FAO-85-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
GURDIAL SINGH
...Respondent
3. FAO-86-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
BAHAL SINGH
...Respondent
4. FAO-87-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
HAKAM SINGH ...Respondent
5. FAO-88-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
BHAG SINGH ...Respondent
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2024 00:52:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
6. FAO-89-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
INDER SINGH ...Respondent
7. FAO-90-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
UJAGAR SINGH ..Respondent
8. FAO-91-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
BAKHTAWAR SINGH ..Respondent
9. FAO-92-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
GURNAM SINGH ..Respondent
10. FAO-95-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
DEPUTY SINGH ..Respondent
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2024 00:52:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
11. FAO-96-1991
UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
Vs.
DHAM KAUR ..Respondent
12. CR-4806-1994
UNION OFINDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
DHAN KAUR & OTHERS ..Respondents
13. CR-4807-1994
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
INDER SINGH & OTHERS ..Respondents
14. CR-4808-1994
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
GURNAM SINGH & OTHERS ..Respondents
15. CR-4809-1994
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
UJAGAR SINGH &OTHERS ..Respondents
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2024 00:52:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
16. CR-4810-1994
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
BEHAL SINGH & OTHERS ..Respondents
17. CR-4811-1994
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
DALIP SINGH & OTHERS ..Respondents
18. CR-4812-1994
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
BAKHTAWAR SINGH & OTHERS ..Respondents
19. CR-1576-1995
UNION OF INDIA ..Petitioner
Vs.
BHAG SINGH AND ORS ..Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present:- Mr. Arun Gosain, Sr. Govt. Counsel,
for the UOI-appellant in all FAOs and
for the petitioner in all revisions.
None for the respondents.
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
FAOs
1. This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned 11 FAOs.
However, since the basic facts are almost similar in all these cases,
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
therefore, the facts are mainly being taken from FAO-94-1991.
2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated
16.11.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge (Arbitrator), Faridkot.
3. Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 55-56 acres,
situated in the revenue estate of village Qilla Nau, Kamiana and Faridkot
Town, was acquired for the defence purposes, and the award in that regard
was passed on 14.02.1973. When the award was announced by the
Collector, it was announced only regarding the value of the land. No award
was passed qua the compensation payable for the assets existing on the said
land. The land-owner(s) kept on pleading with the Collector for passing the
supplementary award qua the assets. However, no such award was passed.
Ultimately, the land-owner(s) filed CWP-2091-1983 seeking a direction to
the Collector to pass a supplementary award. The said writ petition was
allowed by this Court. Accordingly, the supplementary award qua the
assets was passed on 17.08.1984. As has come on record, feeling
aggrieved against the supplementary award, the land-owner(s) sought a
reference to the Court somewhere in the year 1985. Pursuant to that, the
appointment of Arbitrator was notified on 06.10.1986. After appreciating
the material brought on record by the parties, the Court below determined
the value of compensation payable to the land-owner(s) for the assets,
specifying separately as to what amount is payable to which of the land-
owner(s) for the assets on his land. While awarding such compensation, the
court below also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and the interest at the
rate of 9% for the first year and at the rate of 15 per annum for the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
remaining period till the date of payment. Besides this, the land-owner(s)
held entitled to the costs of litigation. Challenging the said award passed by
the Arbitrator, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Since the matter pertains to cases; the files of which were
burnt in the fire incidents which had taken place in the years 1996 and
2011; and the file has only partly been reconstructed, therefore, this Court
is deprived of the full reference of the entire record of the case. However,
as an answer to the query from the Bench, learned counsel for the appellant
has not disputed the fact that the amount of compensation has already been
paid to the entitled land-owner(s). This aspect is fortified by the fact, as is
not disputed by the counsel for the appellant, that the stay in these appeals
was even declined by this Court on 22.07.1991, and it was ordered that the
payment shall be made subject to furnishing of security by the land-owner
(s).
5. Arguing the case, counsel for the appellant has submitted that
since there is no provision for grant of solatium and interest under the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, under which
the present acquisition had been undertaken, therefore, the court below has
gone wrong in law in grating the said benefits to the land-owner(s). It is
reiterated by the counsel for the appellant that since the issue involves grant
of financial benefits, therefore, unless there is a specific provision in the
statute, the financial liability could not have been fastened upon the
appellant. Hence, the court below has totally gone wrong in law and, thus,
the award passed by the court below deserves to be set aside.
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
6. No other material argument has been raised.
7. Having considered the arguments raised by counsel for the
appellant-UOI, and having perused the case file, this Court is of the opinion
that, in ordinary course, the arguments of counsel for the appellant would
have some force, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
Vs. Hari Krishan Khosla (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149, has already clarified
the legal proposition. In the said judgment, it has been held that if there is a
delay in appointment of arbitrator, despite the request made by the land-
owner(s), the Court would be well within its authority to grant solatium and
the interest on the compensation, as well. Hence, delay caused by the State
authorities has been recognized as a valid ground for compensating the
land-owner(s) with solatium and the interest. So far as the present case is
concerned, the facts of the case itself would show that the supplementary
award qua the assets on the land was announced by the Collector after more
than 10 years, even that when he was so directed by this Court in a writ
petition filed by the land-owner(s). Therefore, this delay happens to be
only on the part of the Collector, and the land-owner(s) cannot be put to
disadvantage for lapse of this long time. So far as the request of seeking
reference is concerned, the record shows that notification for appointment
of the Arbitrator was issued on 06.10.1986. Therefore, it is obvious that the
land-owner(s) in the present case, would have approached for the
appointment of the Arbitrator within a reasonable times after the
supplementary award was passed by the Collector. Hence, by all standards,
the delay in payment of compensation of the supplementary award is solely
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127996
FAO-94-1991 and other connected cases
attributed to the State authorities/Collector, and not the land-owner(s).
Hence, the grant of solatium and the interest by the court below, is fully
justified and is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hari Krishan Khosla's case (supra).
8. In view of the above, finding no merits in the present appeals,
the same are dismissed.
Civil Revisions:
9. Since the FAOs involving the main issue itself have been
dismissed hereinabove, therefore, all the eight civil revisions are dismissed.
26.09.2024 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
8 of 8
