UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that land measuring 22 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 183 and 188 of Rectangle No. 219 situated in village Barsoon, was acquired by Union of India for defence purposes by issuance of a notification dated 22.12.1969 published in Punjab Government Gazette dated 9.1.1970, under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for short,'the Act').

(2.) THE claimants were not satisfied with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Collector, therefore they sought appointment of an Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The State Government vide Notification No. 22/86-5-H (V)/27554 dated 11.9.1987, appointed learned Addl. District judge Gurdaspur as an Arbitrator, to determine the amount of compensation and to specify the persons to whom the compensation is to be paid. The period of announcing the award was subsequently extended by the State Government vide letter No. 22/6/86-5-HV/13507-10 dated 25.4.1988 till 24.9.1988. The claimants prayed for compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per marla for land, Rs. 50,000/- for the standing trees and Rs. 1,50,000/- for the house built upon the land in question.

(3.) MR . Ram Chander, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants are aggrieved only against the award of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment on the ground that the Act is silent about the payment of solatium and interest and there is no provisions under the Act. He further contends that the Arbitrator has awarded solatium and interest on the strength of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) and others v. The Union of India, and another, AIR 1974 P.L.R. 658, which has been reversed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 149. He further contends that the law laid in the case of Hari Krishan Khosla (Supra) has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Chajju Ram (dead) by LRs and other (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 568 and Dayal Singh and others v. Union of India and others (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 593. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.