Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Raghbir Singh And Others on 24 January, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
FAO No.894 of 1989 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.894 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.01.2011
Union of India and others
...Appellants
Versus
Raghbir Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for the Union of India.
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the respondents.
.....
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
This order will dispose of appeals bearing FAO Nos. 933 and 934 of 1988 and 894 and 895 of 1989, as the same arise out of common ac- quisition.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator, Gurdaspur. Union of India has filed appeals seek- ing reduction of compensation for the acquired land whereas the landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement thereof.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India in exercise of powers vide notification dated 20.03.1970, issued under Requi- sitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of village Barsoon for use of defence purpose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined by the court below @ ` 50/- per Marla. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitra- tor, Union of India is in appeal challenging the grant of interest, solatium whereas the landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of com- pensation.
A perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator placed reli- ance on the decision of Full Bench of this court in Hari Kishan Khosla Vs. Union of India and another, 1974, PLR 658 to award interest and solatium FAO No.894 of 1989 2 to the land owners.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, has upheld the award of interest and sola- tium on account of delay in appointment of the Arbitrator.
For the reasons stated in Dilawar Singh's case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 24.01.2011 sharmila