http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHER SINGH & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 549        JT 1996 (5)   402  1996 SCALE  (4)322

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises  from  the  order dated April  5, 1990  of the  Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High  Court made  in LPA  NO.444/90. The land of the respondents, along  with  others,  admeasuring  50.55  acres situated   in    village   Behar   Tehsil,   Pathankot   was requisitioned and subsequently acquired for defence purposes under the  Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952  [for short,  the  ’Act’].  The  Land  Acquisition Officer had  determined the  compensation  at  Rs.201/-  per canal. When an application was made by the respondents under Section 8  of the  Act, the  arbitrator in  his award  dated December 6,  1986 determined  the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per canal.  He also awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum  for one  year from  the date of taking possession and @  15% thereafter till date of deposit. When challenged, the appeal  came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge and affirmed  by the  Division Bench.  Thus this  appeal  by special leave.      The only  question that  arises for  consideration  is: whether the  respondents are  entitled  to  the  payment  of solatium and interest awarded by the arbitrator ? This Court in Union  of India  v. Hari  Kishan Khosla [1993 Supp. 2 SCC 149] held  that  the  claimants  are  not  entitled  to  the solatium interest  since the  Act does  not provide  for the payment thereof.  On the  list occasion  when the matter had come up for hearing, this Court passed an order on March 25, 1996 directing  the appellants  to produce  the record of K- Form. A  letter dated  December 19 has been placed before us by the  learned counsel  for the appellants stating that the respondents have  not received  the amount under protest nor have they made any application for appointment of arbitrator within the  stipulated period.  We  need  not  go  into  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

question as  regards the  appointment of  the arbitrator for determination of  the compensation  against the award of the Land Acquisition  Officer since that order has become final. The only  question is:  whether the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest?      Learned counsel  for the  respondents sought to contend that  the   Act   provides   for   determination   of   just compensation. All  the three  components form  part  of  the determination of  just compensation and that, therefore, the award  passed   by   the   arbitrator   does   not   warrant interference.  We   find  no   force  in   the   contention. Determination of  just compensation is with reference to the value of  the land acquired under the Act. Since the payment of solatium  and interest is in addition to the compensation determined under the Act, this Court in Hari Kishan Khosla’s case [supra]  had held  that the  arbitrator  is  devoid  of jurisdiction to  award solatium  and interest.  Under  these circumstances, the  High Court  was not  right in  upholding payment of solatium and interest.      The appeal  is allowed  to the  extent of  awarding  of solatium and  interest and  with respect to determination of compensation @  Rs.1,000/- per  canal the  order of the High Court stands upheld. No costs.