IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of property – Compensation must be paid to owner of acquired property within a reasonable time.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The facts of the case are glaring. The respondents are the owners of the lands subject matter of these appeals. At the instance of the Ministry of Defence, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short “the 1952 Act”). A notice of acquisition under Section 7 of the 1952 Act was issued on 26th March, 1964 which was published in the State Government Gazette on 3rd April, 1964. The vesting of the acquired property was complete on publication of the notice in the official gazette.

3. The provisions for grant of compensation in respect of the acquired land are found in Section 8 of the 1952 Act. The first option provided therein is to fix the compensation by an agreement between the acquiring body and the owners, if there is no such agreement, under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, the Central Government is required to appoint an arbitrator for determining the amount of compensation payable. An offer for payment of compensation was made by the appellants belatedly after 12 years on 16th August, 1976. The respondents declined to accept the said offer. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer addressed a letter to the Government on 8th October, 1976 to appoint an arbitrator. Accordingly, the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was appointed as the Arbitrator. Nearly 22 years thereafter on 8th May, 1998, the award was declared by the Arbitrator by which he came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 150/- per Marla.

4. An appeal was preferred by the first respondent as well as by the present appellants for challenging the award of the Arbitrator. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the market value ought to be Rs. 350/- per Marla which was determined in the cases of similarly situated acquired lands. As there was a gross and inordinate delay in completing the arbitral proceedings for determination of the market value, relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Harbans Singh Shanni Devi vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 470-471 of 1985, decided on 11th February, 1985 and Union of India vs. Chajju Ram, (2003) 5 SCC 568 which were followed by this Court in a decision in the case of Dilawar Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 357 the High Court granted solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and interest on the compensation amount at 9% and 15%.

5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the relief of solatium and interest has been granted in earlier cases by this Court where there was a delay on the part of the Central Government in appointing an Arbitrator for determination of compensation. In this case, the delay is mainly in disposal of the arbitral proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the High Court ought not to have awarded both solatium and interest. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that in terms of the impugned judgment, the first respondent has received the entire compensation amount about 7 years back.

6. It will be useful to refer to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of this Court in the case of Dilawar Singh (supra) which reads thus:

“9. It is common ground that the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 do not make any provision for the grant of solatium or interest to the expropriated landowners. The absence of any such provision in the said act was in fact made a basis for a challenge to the constitutional validity of the enactment which was repelled by this Court in Union of India vs. Hari Krishan Khosla, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 149. This Court pointed out that any comparison between acquisition made under the Requisitioning and acquisition Act would be odious in view of the dissimilarities between the two enactments. That decision was followed in subsequent pronouncements of