DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER Vs. V SURESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2108/92, dated: 18-8-1994.

(2.) The facts leading to the Writ Petition are that the petitioners are the owners of the land ad measuring Ac. 4-26 gts. in S.No. 56/1 situated at Kanchanbagh, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad District. The Government requisitioned the said lands for the purpose of establishment of Defence Research Laboratories on 15-12-1978 on a tentative rent of Rs. 400/- per annum. Some other lands adjoining lands of the petitioners were also requisitioned and the rent appears to have been fixed at Rs. 950/- per annum per acre. Not satisfied with the fixation of the rent, the petitioners moved the Government and accordingly the Arbitrator was appointed by the Government. Award was passed on 17-4-1986 fixing the rent at Rs.950/- per annum with solatium of 15% and with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of the lands. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Respondents No.1 and 2 carried the matter to the High Court in C.M.A.SR No. 9184/88 and the same was dismissed on 10-7-1989. Consequent on the dismissal of the CMA, the petitioners submitted representations to the 2nd respondent on 25-7-1991 requesting for the payment of rent as directed by the Arbitrator. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the authorities to pay the rent as fixed by the Arbitrator from the period 15-12-1978 to 1-3-1985 within three months. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Central Government submits that the learned single Judge ought not to have allowed the compensation together with solatium and interest. He submits that under the provisions of R.A.I.P. Act, 1932 payment of solatium and interest is not contemplated and therefore, he submits that the Award of the Arbitrator directing payment of rents together with solatium and interest is highly illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act 30 of 1952.