& Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors  Insc 230 (7 April 2005)
Appeal No.1710 of 2001 has been preferred by the claimants Girdhari & Ors. whereas
Civil Appeal Nos. 1711-1712 of 2001, C.A. No. 1713 of 2001 and C.A. No.1714 of
2001 have been preferred by the Union of India. The learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India does not press the
aforesaid appeals and therefore, they are dismissed as not pressed.
Civil Appeal No.1710 of 2001, the facts are that the land in question was
requisitioned in the year 1972-1973 and thereafter on 31.3.1987 a notice under
Section 7(1) of Requisition & Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952
(the Act) was issued and which was published in ...2/- -2- the gazette on
12.11.1987. According to the appellants there was an agreement, and
consequently a resolution was passed on 18.9.1989 for payment of compensation
at the agreed rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha.
the Collector did not act on the agreement and by his decision of 18.12.1991 he
reduced the compensation to Rs.3,850/- per bigha.
the appellants moved the High Court in view of the differences between the
parties and by order dated 17.7.1992 the High Court appointed the District
Judge, Jodhpur as the Arbitrator. By his Award
dated 6th June, 1994 the Arbitrator allowed compensation
at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha in addition to solatium at the rate of 10%
and interest at the rate of 4% with effect from November 12, 1987 till payment. The objections preferred against the Award
were also rejected.
payment was not made to the appellants pursuant to the Award, they filed a writ
petition before the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing
enforcement of the Award by payment of compensation. By Judgment and Order
dated 23.7.1996, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single
Judge of the High ...3/- -3- Court. It appears that appeals were preferred
against the said judgment by Union of India and the claimants and the appeals
came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.1997.
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the only question which arose in the
writ petition was whether an Award could be enforced by issuance of a writ of
mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the same was
required to be executed as a decree of the Civil Court. The Division Bench which heard the appeal of the
appellants held that the agreement of 28.9.1989 had been proved and on that
basis compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha was justified.
it held that solatium and interest could not be awarded by the Arbitrator and
therefore, modified the Award accordingly. Against the said judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court these appeals have been preferred.
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India
fairly submits that since a finding has been recorded by the High Court that
the ...4/- -4- agreement for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/-
per bigha has been proved, the Union of India will accept the same and not
press this appeal. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of this
Court in Union of India versus Chajju Ram (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (2003 5 SCC
568) the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could not be resorted to and solatium
and interest could not be awarded.
other hand, counsel for the appellant submitted that on equitable
considerations this Court has in Prabhu Dayal & Ors. versus Union of India
(1995 Suppl. 4 SCC 221) awarded solatium and interest, though in law the same
could not be awarded. That was because there was considerable delay in
appointment of Arbitrator causing prejudice to the claimant.
have considered all aspects of the matter. It was stated before us by counsel
appearing on behalf of the Union of India on instruction, that the total amount
of compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per bigha has been
deposited in Court. Counsel for the appellants states that he has no knowledge
of the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view ...5/- -5- that interest at the rate of 9% on the compensation amount be
allowed to the appellants in the interest of justice. We, accordingly, allow
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.9.1989 till the date of deposit of
the compensation amount in Court or payment to the claimants, as the case may
appeal is disposed of in the above terms.