UNION OF INDIA Vs. FAUJA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a common judgment, this Court Proposes to dispose of the present revision as well as Civil Revision Nos. 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467 and 1468 of 2005, as all of them arise out of a common order passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda on December 02, 2004. However, the facts are taken from the present revision.

(2.) LAND measuring about 632 acres situated in village Mehna, Tehsil and District Bathinda was requisitioned on 7.12.1972, under Section 23(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Subsequently, it was acquired on 28.12.1974 under Section 30 of the Act. Vide order dated 6.3.1975 the Competent Authority assessed the compensation as follows :

(3.) THE respondents then moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the petitioner also followed likewise so as to seek the setting aside of the order passed by the High Court while enhancing the compensation. The challenge of the Union of India in its Special Leave Petitions filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only against the grant of solatium and interest in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier in Union of India Vs. Hari Krishan Khosla (D) by LRs., JT 1992(5) SC 574. While issuing notice in the S.L.P., the Hon'ble Supreme. Court granted interim stay with regard to the amount of solatium and interest. Both the set of cases, one filed by the petitioner and the other by the respondents, were finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.3.1995 by setting aside the order of the High Court to the extent of granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest as well as the award of the Arbitrator granting solatium and interest. The respondents were held entitled to the principal amount of compensation determined by the High Court and the Arbitrator. Pursuant thereto, the Union of India deposited a consolidated cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,22,86,360/- on 30.3.1996 with the executing Court. The land owners later on sought recalling of the order dated 2.3.1995 but their applications were dismissed on 11.11.2002.