Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned compensation for land acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Land measuring 50.55 acres situated in village Behar, Tehsil Pathankot, was requisitioned and subsequently acquired for defence purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer initially determined compensation at Rs.201 per canal. The respondents, dissatisfied with this amount, applied under Section 8 of the Act, and the arbitrator, by award dated December 6, 1986, determined compensation at Rs.1,000 per canal, along with solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till deposit. The Union of India challenged this award before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the appeal, and the Division Bench affirmed the decision in LPA No.444/90 dated April 5, 1990. The Union of India then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, challenging the award of solatium and interest. The sole legal issue for consideration was whether the respondents were entitled to solatium and interest under the Act. The appellants relied on Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, where it was held that claimants are not entitled to solatium and interest because the Act does not provide for such payments. The respondents argued that the Act provides for determination of just compensation and that solatium and interest form part of just compensation. The Supreme Court rejected the respondents' contention, holding that determination of just compensation refers only to the value of the land acquired, and solatium and interest are additional payments not contemplated by the Act. Relying on Hari Kishan Khosla, the Court held that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award solatium and interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the award of solatium and interest, while the determination of compensation at Rs.1,000 per canal was upheld. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Solatium and Interest - Non-Entitlement Under Special Statute - Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 8 - The arbitrator awarded compensation of Rs.1,000 per canal along with solatium at 30% and interest at 9% for one year and 15% thereafter for land acquired for defence purposes. The Supreme Court held that the Act does not provide for payment of solatium and interest, and the arbitrator was devoid of jurisdiction to award them. Determination of just compensation under the Act is confined to the value of the land acquired and does not include additional amounts like solatium and interest. Following Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award of solatium and interest while upholding compensation of Rs.1,000 per canal. Held that the High Court was not right in upholding payment of solatium and interest. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest awarded by the arbitrator under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed to the extent of awarding of solatium and interest; order of the High Court with respect to determination of compensation at Rs.1,000 per canal upheld. No costs.
Law Points
- Land acquired under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act
- 1952
- compensation determined by Land Acquisition Officer and arbitrator
- solatium and interest not provided under the Act
- arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to award solatium and interest
- determination of just compensation refers only to value of land
- Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla followed
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (04) 119
K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
1996 SCC (4) 549, JT 1996 (5) 402, 1996 SCALE (4) 322
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by special leave against High Court order upholding arbitrator's award of solatium and interest in land acquisition under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
Remedy Sought
Union of India sought to set aside the award of solatium and interest by the arbitrator, contending that they are not payable under the Act.
Filing Reason
Respondents' land was requisitioned and acquired for defence purposes; the arbitrator awarded compensation with solatium and interest although the Act does not provide for such payments.
Previous Decisions
Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs.201 per canal; arbitrator awarded Rs.1,000 per canal plus solatium and interest; learned single Judge and Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed appeals and affirmed arbitrator's award.
Issues
Whether the respondents are entitled to payment of solatium and interest awarded by the arbitrator under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that under Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, claimants are not entitled to solatium and interest because the Act does not provide for them.
Respondents contended that the Act provides for determination of just compensation, and solatium, interest, and compensation are components of just compensation, so the arbitrator's award should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, solatium and interest are not payable because the Act does not provide for them; determination of just compensation is confined to the value of the land acquired, and these additional amounts are beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Follows Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla.
Judgment Excerpts
The only question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest awarded by the arbitrator ?
This Court in Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla [1993 Supp. 2 SCC 149] held that the claimants are not entitled to the solatium interest since the Act does not provide for the payment thereof.
Determination of just compensation is with reference to the value of the land acquired under the Act. Since the payment of solatium and interest is in addition to the compensation determined under the Act, this Court in Hari Kishan Khosla's case [supra] had held that the arbitrator is devoid of jurisdiction to award solatium and interest.
The appeal is allowed to the extent of awarding of solatium and interest and with respect to determination of compensation @ Rs.1,000/- per canal the order of the High Court stands upheld.
Procedural History
Land of respondents admeasuring 50.55 acres in village Behar Tehsil, Pathankot was requisitioned and acquired for defence purposes under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs.201 per canal. Respondents applied under Section 8; arbitrator in award dated December 6, 1986 determined compensation at Rs.1,000 per canal, with solatium 30% and interest 9% for one year from date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till deposit. Union of India challenged before Punjab & Haryana High Court; learned single Judge dismissed appeal, Division Bench in LPA No.444/90 affirmed on April 5, 1990. Union of India filed special leave petition in Supreme Court; leave granted. Supreme Court heard and decided on April 15, 1996, allowing appeal in part.
Acts & Sections
- Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952: Section 8
