UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants namely, Union of India, Estates Officer, Udhampur and Assistant Defence Officer, Udhampur, through the medium of this appeal have challenged the Award dated 4-5-1994 given by the learned Arbitrator, (District Judge,Udhampur) under the provisions of the J. and K. Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act (hereinafter to be referred to as Act). Respondents Nos. 1 to 38 are the owners of the land measuring 408 Kanals 7 marlas situated in village "Sansoo" and village "Dhanoori" Tehsil Udhampur. Initially in the year 1948, the Army authorities had taken over the said land on rent but subsequently on 24-4-1950 the same was requisitioned. On 26-12-1988 the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were initiated under the said Act and the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, was appointed as a competent authority for assessing the fair compensation, who categorised the land into three classes and fixed the rates on the following terms :-1. Brehal Changi @ Rs. 12,000/- per kanal.2. Brehal Mandi @ Rs. 10,000/- per kanal.3. Banjer Kadeem or Banjer Jadeed @ Rs. 9,000/- per kanal.

(2.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 38 felt aggrieved and approached the Government for appointment of arbitrator. This request was accepted. Under sub-cl. (b) of S. 8 of the Act, S.R.O. No. 40 dated 25-2-1993 was issued whereby the learned District Judge, Udhampur, was appointed as arbitrator. On a notice issued by the arbitrator to respondents Nos. 1 to 38 inviting their claims for compensation, they filed a claim statement claiming Rupees one lakh per kanal as compensation for acquired land. They also claimed lump sum amount of Rupees fifteen lakhs as the cost of the trees standing over the land. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 countered these claims by stating that the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, were fair and they may be construed as fair amount of compensation.

(3.) The arbitrator framed the following issues :-1. Whether amount of compensation was determined and paid as per prevailing market rate at the time of requisition? OPD2. In case issue No. 1 is not proved, what was the prevailing market rate at the time of acquisition of land in dispute? OPP3. Whether the compensation of standing trees has not been paid to the landlords, if so, to what compensation the land owners are entitled in this count? OPP3-A. Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium (Jabrana) at the rate of 15 per cent and interest on the amount of compensation. If so, to what extent? OPP4. To what relief, the land owners are entitled to? OPP