IMPORTANT POINT
Court should not pass contradictory orders in identical cases.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J. —

Two questions fall for determination in these appeals that arise out of orders passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. These are -

1) Whether award of solatium and interest is permissible even in cases where acquisition of land is made under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952; and

2) Whether the land owners were entitled to enhancement of compensation beyond Rs.200/- per marla determined by the learned Single Judge.

The questions arise in the following backdrop.

2. A large extent of land situate in the outskirts of Pathankot in the State of Punjab and underlying different survey numbers was acquired for defence purposes under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement as to the amount of compensation payable to the expropriated owners of the land in question led the owners to seek appointment of an Arbitrator for determination of the amount payable to them. The Government did not respond to the said request for a long time which forced the land-owners to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Government to appoint an Arbitrator. It is only after the said petition was allowed and a mandamus issued that the Government appointed the District Judge, Gurdaspur as an Arbitrator, sixteen years after the lands had been acquired. The Arbitrator recorded evidence and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the owners were entitled to compensation that ranged between Rs.50/- per marla (Rs. 1000/- per kanal) for land relevant to Civil Appeal No.9216-9217/2010 to Rs.200/- per marla for lands relevant to Civil No. 9198- 9202/2010. Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years till payment of the amount of compensation to them was also held payable to the landowners. Aggrieved by the said award the Union of India appealed to the High Court, inter alia, contending that the Arbitrator was not justified in awarding nor was there any provision for granting solatium and interest under the Act aforementioned. The land-owners also challenged the award made by the Arbitrator by filing cross-objections before the High Court in which they prayed for enhancement of compensation payable to them to Rs.500/- per marla. By a common judgment impugned in these appeals the High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India. The cross-objections filed by the owners were also dismissed by separate orders unsupported by any reasons for denying the enhancement prayed for by them. Relying upon the decision in,1 Jagdish Prasad v. The Competent Authority, the High Court held that award of compensation @ Rs.150/- per marla by the Arbitrator was justified on a uniform basis for all kinds of lands. The High Court overlooked the fact that in some cases the compensation awarded was Rs.50/- per marla while in some others the same was awarded @ Rs.200/- per marla. The High Court also noticed that compensation at the same rate had been granted to owners of land in village Nalunga which award had been affirmed by the High Court in LPA 721 of 1987 filed by the Union of India and decided on 3rd September, 1987.

3. The High Court also came to the conclusion that award of solatium and interest was justified having regard to the delay on the part of Government in appointing an Arbitrator. Reliance was placed by the High Court on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 149. The High Court, however, modified the order to the extent that instead of describing the amount as solatium and interest the same was described as compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. Both the parties have come up in appeal against the above order. While the appeals filed by the Union of India call in question the correctness of the view taken by the H