VIR KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises cut of the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Land measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Bharoli Khurd belonging to the mother of the present appellant was acquired for defence purposes vide notification under Section 7 of the Act dated December 12, 1969 and published in the Punjab Government Gazette on January 9, 1970. As the compensation offered was not acceptable to her, she sought the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8. The matter was thereafter taken up by the Arbitrator and after examining the evidence produced on record and more particularly the award of the High Court pertaining to the land acquired in the same village in the year 1964, awarded as sum of Rs. 220/- per marla as compensation. The Arbitrator also noted that the award pertaining to the land acquired from Harbans Singh and Shanti Devi in the year 1964 had become final as the appeal filed against the award of the High Court had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Arbitrator also observed that as the lands belonging to the present appellant and that belonging to Harbans Singh and Shanti Devi were similarly situated, the appellant was also entitled to the award of Rs. 220/- per marla and solatium as well.

(2.) IT is against this award, the present appeal has been filed seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Union of India has pointed out that the land belonging to the present appellant had been in possession of the Defence department since 1966 and as such the Division Bench judgment of this Court could not be applied to the facts of the present case. He has also urged that the appellant was, in any case, not entitled to the award of solatium and interest in terms of the award of the Arbitrator, in view of the judgment rendered in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 149, which had been followed by several other judgments.