Punjab-Haryana High Court
Board Of The Nawan Mission, America vs Union Of India And Anr. on 12 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988P&H247, AIR 1988 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 248, (1988) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 362, (1988) 1 LANDLR 372, 1988 REVLR 18, 1988 PUNJ LJ 108, (1988) 93 PUN LR 4
ORDER
1. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present applications which can be dealt with and disposed of by a common order are that an area comprising 1646 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land situate in three revenue estates of village Lande Ke Dosanjh and Moga Mehla Singh near Moga, a Sub-Divisional Headquarter, was requisitioned by the authorities for public purpose on Dec. 1, 1965. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under S. 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act, 1952, issued, a notification dt. Feb. 4. 1972, and acquired the aforementioned land. The dispute regarding compensation was referred to an arbitrator as provided by the Act. The arbitrator, in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 8 of the. Act awarded compensation to various land-owner claimants. Being dissatisfied by the compensations awarded by the arbitrator, a large number of landowners, including the three applicants, filed a number of first appeals before this Court. The Union of India also filed an F.A.O. claiming relief to a limited extent, namely, that the amount of solatium awarded by the arbitrator at the rate of 15 per cent on the market value should be set aside. The learned single Judge vide his order dt. Mar. 21, 1981 partly allowed the appeals filed by various land-owner claimants and enhanced the rate at which compensation had been awarded to them. At the same, time, he also allowed the appeal filed by the. Union of India and held that the claimants were, over and above the market price of the land as determined by him, not entitled to 15 per cent solatium for compulsory acquisition of their land. The landowners, including the applicants. there filed letters patent appeals that were numbered as 721 to 741, 743 to 748, 763 to 773, 872 to 891, 914 to 931, 969 to 973, 987 to 989, 1000, 1001, 1038 and 1047 of 1981, and the appeals filed by the three applicants were numbered as 744, 864 and 768 of 1981, respectively. All these appeals were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated December 21, 1982(reported in AIR 1983 Punj & Har 277). The Bench while allowing the letters patent appeals observed thus :--
"Solatium essentially has co be treated as integral part of the compensation payable to a land owner on account of the acquisition of his land. In view of clause (e) of S. 8(1) which enjoins on the Arbitrator to "determine the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just" does not in any way disentitle him or the claimant to the solatium in addition to the market value of the land. S. 8 which incorporates the principles and method of determining compensation does not talk of "market value" as is the case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: In case the Arbitrator finds while quantifying the compensation that 15 per cent of the market value be allowed to make it "just compensation", there is no provision of principle which abhors him from doing so. The basic reason or justification for the grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the market value in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the compulsory nature of acquisition of the property of a land owner. A land owner is equally helpless m matters of acquisition under the Act. Thus in cases under the Act, if the Arbitrator deems it proper and fair in order to award just compensation to the land owner he should add up to 15 per cent of the market value styling it as solatium or giving it any other nomenclature; the same cannot reasonably and plausibly be objected to."
2. Subsequently, on Sept. 24, 1984, Central Act 68 of 1984, came into force. amending the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894.
3. Under the amended law, the rate of solatium as provided by S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was increased from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. At the same time the rate of interest under S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent for the first year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter from the date of taking possession of the property. Section 30(3) of the Amending Act also provided that amendments made in this regard were also to be applicable in respect of the appeals pending before the High Court on or after April 30, 1982.
4. It has been brought to our notice (see C.M. No. 3558 of 1987 in C.M. No. 775 of 1987 in L.P.A. No. 744 of 1981) that a large number of claimants affected by the acquisition involved in the instant case filed applications under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Civil P.C. claiming that in view of the provisions of the Central Act 68 of 1984, the benefit of the amended Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act be also extended to them. These applications were allowed and the applicants have been extended the benefit of amended Ss. 22(3) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some of the orders passed in those cases read thus:-
"L.P.A. No. 740 of 1987.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Learned counsel appearing; for the Union of India concedes that relief has to be granted to the applicant in the same terms as in Civil Misc. No. 255-CI of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 401 of 1983, Som Nath v. Haryana State etc., decided on 12th. September, 1985(reported in 1986 Pun LJ 344). Consequently, the application is allowed. No costs."
L.P.A. No. 969 of 1981.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India, concedes at the Bar that this application has to be allowed in the same terms as in C.M. No. 436U-CII of 1985 in F.A.O. No. 658 of 1984(Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab), decided by G.C. Mital, J. on Sept. 21, 1985. We order accordingly."
L.P.A. No. 728 of 1981.
The claimant-applicant through C.M. No. 1208 of 1987 has claimed two reliefs namely (i) payment of enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% instead of l5%, and (ii) enhanced interest at the rate of 9%" per annum instead of 6%,~ per annum for a period of one year from the date of the delivery of possession, and thereafter. at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. The case regarding these two reliefs is covered by the ratio of Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Civil Misc. No. 255-CI of 1985s in R.F.A. No. 401 of 1983, decided on 12th Sept. 1985 and in view of this decision the respondent-Union of India is directed to pay to the claimant-applicant solatium at the rate of 30% and also interest as claimed by him. There will however be no order as to costs."
It, thus, appears that the Central Government did not dispute the claim put forward by the claimants in those applications and agreed that those claimants were entitled to the benefits of Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Consequently by various orders: this Court directed that the benefit of amended Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act be also given to those claimants. It appears that inspired by this. the three claimants, who are also affected by the same acquisition. filed the present applications claiming that they should also be allowed the benefit of the amended Ss. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the rate of solatium payable to them be increased from 15 per cent to 30 per cent as also the rate of interest payable under S. 28 of the Act as awarded to them be increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent for :he first year and 15 per cent per annum for the subsequent years, as had been done in the case of the claimants situated in similar circumstances.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India contested the claim of the applicants. He urged that the present applications. in fact. are applications for review of the order passed by this Court in the three letters patent appeals. Such an application should either have been moved within a period of thirty days of the date of the judgment or an application should have been filed praying for condonation of delay in presenting the same after explaining the reasons why the same could not he filed within the period of limitation. As this has not been done the applications deserve to be rejected as barred by time. The learned counsel also contended that the amendments made by Act 68 of 1984 in the Land Acquisition Act have no bearing on the compensation which has been determined by the Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1952. and, as such also, the present applications are not maintainable.
6. As pointed above, in a large number of cases arising out of the same acquisition proceedings. the Court has without any opposition by the Central Government. allowed similar applications filed by various claimants and those decisions have become final. We are of the opinion that in the circumstances the respondents should not be allowed to raise aforementioned technical leas so as to discriminate between the claimants and other landowners. In this connection, we can usefully quote the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh. AIR 1985 SC 1576 :--
"... Where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value w hen the law. in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not. as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen. We are, therefore, of the view that, in the present case. the Division Bench as well as the learned single Judge should have allowed the appellants to pay up the deficit court-fee and awarded to them compensation at the higher rate or rates determined by them."
Aforementioned observations were made by the Supreme Court in a case where the appellants before it had claimed that they should be allowed higher compensation as determined by it in the case of other similar claimants after affording them an opportunity to pay the deficit court-fee. The principles underlying the aforementioned observations equally apply in determining Fair compensation for cases arising under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and, in our opinion, the Central Government should not be allowed to raise these technical pleas so as to discriminate between the claimants and other landowners in whose cases they have willingly suffered the granting of benefit on the lines of S. 23(2) and S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Accordingly, in the special facts of the case. we grant the relief claimed by the applicants in the present case as well so as to bring them at par with other claimants in hose cases similar applications have, without being opposed by the Central Government. been allowed by this Court.
7. In the result, we allow these applications and the judgments dt. Dec. 21, 1982, are amended to the extent that on the enhanced amount of compensation as determined by the Court the applicants would be entitled to 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent solatium on the principles of S. 23(2) of the amended Land Acquisition Act as also to the interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent from the date of possession of the land was taken and to the date of payment of such excess in accordance with the principles contained in S. 28 of the amended Land Acquisition Act.
8. Applications allowed.