ISHWARI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Requsitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short the `Act') for enhancement of compensation awarded in case No. 13 of 1982-83 vide award dated 14-3-1985 passed by the appointed Arbitrator Shri Justice V. R. Newaskar, a retired Judge of this Court.

(2.) Fact giving rise to this appeal are thus : One Sunderlal was the Bhumiswami of 25.04 acres of land situated in Mouza : Katanga, Tehsil Jabalpur who died in the year 1979. The land was requisitioned by the Central Government by notification dated 24-6-1963. The Central Government after forming an opinion that it is necessary to acquire the land for defence purpose published a notice in the official Gazette dated 5-5-1972 to the effect that Central Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of Section 7 of the Act. After publication of notice land vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrance under Section 7(2) of the Act. In pursuance of the notice the Competent Authority offered compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 2993 per acre and Rs. 6672/- for the trees standing over the land, Sunderlal accepted the compensation under the protest, hence, he was paid Rs. 65093.05 for the land and trees, the balance amount of Rs. 16452.27 was kept in deposit in Jabalpur Treasury as is evident from the proceedings of the Competent Authority dated 13-3-1973. As the owner did not agree to the amount of compensation so offered, the Central Government appointed Shri Justice V.R. Newaskard retired Judge of this Court as arbitrator in accordance with Section 8(1)(b) of the Act for determining the fair amount of compensation for the land and trees so acquired. The arbitrator so appointed entered upon the reference on 9-8-1982 who issue notice to the owner Sunderlal and the Central Government through Military Estate Officer, Jabalpur. On receipt of notice, the Central Government took a stand that the amount offered by the Competent Authority for land and trees was fair as the prevailing market price on the date of notice of acquisition namely 5-5-1972 was Rs.2983/- per acre. As the legal representatives of deceased Sunderlal filed their written statement wherein it is asserted that the compensation offered by the Competent Authority was inadequate inasmuch as the potentiality of the land and use of which it could be put was not taken into consideration. The land is situated in proximity area of the Jabalpur Cantonment and city. The land by its development could be used for the residential locality for the city dwellers. It was pointed out that Modi Cooperative Housing Society had actually purchased land in the neighbourhood at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre, therefore, the Competent Authority ought to have offered a fair compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre and for trees Rs.30,000/-. An additional compensation by way of solatium for compulsory character of acquisition was also claimed.

(3.) Learned Arbitrator placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court, Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, AIR 1973 SC 689, Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1202 : (1975 All LJ 395); State of Kerala v. T. M. Peter, AIR 1980 SC 1438; and P.C. Goswami v. Collector of Darrang, AIR 1982 SC 1214 held that although there is no provision similar to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the 'LA Act') for awarding solatium, yet on general principles such additional amount of compensation at 15% of the amount determined of fair amount of compensation ought to be awarded to the claimants. After holding so the learned Arbitrator proceeded to consider fair amount of compensation payable to the claimants for the land and trees.