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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJAIB SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/02/1996

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

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)    73        1996 SCALE  (2)594

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Substitution allowed.      Leave granted.      Notification  under   section  7   of   Requisition   & Acquisition of  Immovable Properties  Act, 1852  (for short, the "Act")  was published  on October 13, 1969 and the award was  made.  Pursuant  thereto  an  offer  was  made  to  the respondents in  Form ’F’  of the Rules framed under the Act. The respondents  had not  agreed for  the compensation. As a consequence, the  matter was  referred under section 8(1) to the arbitrator.  He took  up the  matter on November 7, 1975 and the  award was  made on  August 19, 1983. The arbitrator awarded higher compensation with solatium and interest. When the matter  was carried to the High Court by the appellants, the  High  Court  had  further  enhanced  the  solatium  and interest  applying   the  amended  provisions  of  the  Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 by judgment and order dated 10.2.1984. Thus this appeal by special leave.      This Court  in Union  of India  v. Hari  Krishan Khosla [(1993) Supp.  2 SCC  149] has  held that  for the  property acquired under  the  Act,  the  principle  of  solatium  and interest under  Land  Acquisition  Act  1  of  1894  is  not applicable and  that, therefore,  the land  owners  are  not entitled to  the payment  thereof. Noticing  a  judgment  of another three-Judge  Bench which had granted interest due to an abnormal  delay on  the part  of the  Union of  India  in appointing the  arbitrator interest  was  awarded.  All  the cases thereafter were considered in Union of India & Anr. v. Munsha & Ors. [JT (1995) 8 SC 289]. This Court has held that where the  State is not in any way responsible for the delay in appointing the arbitrator, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of interest. Where the State, after the owner objected to  the award  of the  Collector, is responsible in delaying the  appointment of  an arbitrator, necessarily the State has  to bear  the burden  of paying  interest  to  the claimants. Each case has to be examined on its own facts. In

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

this case  since the  respondents had informed the appellant that they  were not  agreeable to the award of the Collector and made  an offer  in Form  ’F’ and  immediately thereafter reference was  made to  the arbitrator,  the  State  is  not responsible for  delay in the award of the arbitrator. Under those  circumstances,   the  State  is  not  liable  to  pay interest.      This Court has also repeatedly held that when the Court does  not   award  any  enhanced  compensation  which  is  a condition precedent for the application of the provisions of Interest and  solatium under  the Land  Acquisition Act, the Court lacks  inherent jurisdiction  to  award  solatium  and interest in  the land  acquisition cases. Equally so, of the enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. In  these cases, since the Land Acquisition Act itself does not apply to the acquisition of the land under the Act, the   Amendment Act  68 of  1984 equally does not apply. The High Court,  therefore, has  committed grave error of law in applying the  provisions of  the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 to further enhance solatium and interest.      The appeals  are  accordingly  allowed.  The  order  of arbitrator as  confirmed by the High Court awarding solatium and interest  stands  set  aside.  In  other  respects,  the determination of compensation stands upheld. No costs.