MAWAHEDDUDDIN Vs. COLLECTOR HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the successors of the landowners. The lands in a total extent of Acs. 50-10 guntas bearing Survey Nos. 352, 353/1, 354/1, 359/1, 355, 357 and 358 situated in Shaikpet village, Urban Taluk, Hyderabad District were initially requisitioned in the year 1963 under the provisions of the Requisitions and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Act. Subsequently, a notification acquiring them was published under Section 7 of the Act on 4/03/1970 for public purpose. The competent authority under the Act offered compensation, but the appellants declined to receive it. As a result, they could not reach an agreement with the Government. Therefore, the Government have appointed the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to be the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act, by notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 266, Revenue (K) dt. 14/03/1974. He enquired into the claims; the parties have participated and adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. Before the Competent Authority, the claimants laid claim at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per square yard for all the lands. The Arbitrator confirmed the order of the competent authority namely Rs. 10.00 per square yard to all the lands except to the extent of Ac. 1-02 guntas in Survey No. 352 for which the compensation was determined at Rs. 5.00 per square yard to be the just and reasonable compensation. The appellants also claimed solatium at 15% and also interest at 4% on the amount offered by the Competent Authority. The Arbitrator awarded interest at 4% on unpaid compensation from the date of notification till the date of payment, but however, disallowed solatium on the ground that the Act does not provide for payment of solatium. In this appeal, the appellants restricted their claim to Rs. 15.00 per square yard and also reiterated their claim for solatium at the rate of 15%. In this appeal, Sri Mohd. Mokaramuddin, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the value of the land prevailing in the neighbourhood ranges from Rs. 30.00 to Rs. 18.00 per square yard and the grant of compensation at Rs. 10.00 is very meagre and at least they are entitled to the com at the rate of Rs. 15.00 to which they restricted their claim in this appeal. In support thereof, he relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. A-1 to A-7. He also further contended that though there is no specific power under the Act to provide payment of solatium, since it being in the nature of compulsory acquisition and deprivation of the right to possession and enjoyment of the property against the wishes of the owners of the land, they are entitled under law for payment of solatium as part of compensation as enjoined under Section 7 of the Act. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Gurucharan Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Punj & Har 277 and a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in P. C. Goswami v. Collector of Darrang, AIR 1982 SC 1214. On the other hand, Miss. Lakshmi Devi, learned Government Pleader resisted the claim. She contended that the arbitrator had considered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the payment of compensation at Rs. 10.00 per square yard to the lands except to the lands in Survey No. 352 at Rs. 5.00 per square yard to Ac. 1-02 guntas in Survey No. 352 is just and reasonable. It does not warrant interference in appeal since the facts and circumstances have been fairly considered by the arbitrator in fixing the compensation. She also further contended that there is no express provision under the Act for payment of solatium. The solatium is not part of the value of the land. The Parliament is aware of the existence of Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and the Legislature did not incorporate it as part of this Act for payment of solatium. Therefore, by necessary implication, the Legislature excluded the award op solatium as part of compensation. Therefore, the Arbitrator is justified in refusing to award solatium. However, in support of this contention, there is no decision cited by the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) Upon these respective contentions, the questions that arises for consideration are : (1) Whether the compensation awarded by the arbitrator is just and reasonable; and (2) Whether the appellants are entitled to solatium at 15% as claimed by them?

(3.) In order to appreciate these contentions, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Act in this regard. Section 3 of the Act empowers the competent authority, where the authorities are of the opinion that any property needed or likely to be needed for public purpose, being a purpose of the Union should be requisitioned, to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. Section 7 gives power to acquire the property requisitioned for the public purpose by publishing in the official gazette a notice to that effect. The property, shall, on and from the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such property shall end. Section 8 provides the principles and method of determining the compensation which reads as follows: "Section 8 (1) : Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say, - (a) Where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement; (b) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court, (c) and (d) ............... ............ ............. (e) the arbitrator shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid, and in making the award, he shall have regard to the circumstances of each case and the provision of sub-sections (2) and (3), so far as they are applicable; (2) ........ ........... ................ (3) The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under Section 7 shall be "the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in open market." If it had remained in the same conditions as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition." (Since clauses (b) to (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) are not relevant for the purpose of this case, they are not extracted).