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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHER SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/04/1995

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard 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 and interest since the Act does not provide for the payment thereof.  On the  last 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,  1995  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   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?

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

    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  awareding 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.