IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 Union of India and another .......... Appellants Versus Karan Singh and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Lalit Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

None for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for pro forma respondent No. 4.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 08.05.1998 passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the arbitration reference invoked at the instance of respondent(s)-landowner(s) was disposed of with the relevant findings recorded in para-14 of the Award dated 08.05.1998, as under:-

“ Issue No. 5 (Relief)

14. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and my findings issuewise, I accept all these four applications and award compensation to the applicants at the rate of Rs.150/- per marla as market value of the land. I also award solatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation, so worked out of the land of the same village in writ petition No.FAO 462 of 1980 decided on 11/11/88 in case Union of India Vs. Shankar Dass. The applicants are also awarded interest at the rate of 9% for the first year after taking possession and at rate of 15% per annum thereafter, till payment. The applicants are also entitled other benefits arising due to the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The applications are accepted with costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.500/-in each case. The respondents shall make the payment to the applicants within a period of three months from today, failing which the recovery can be effected through execution. A copy of this judgment be placed in the other connected cases nos. 3 of 1997, titled as Puran Singh etc. Vs. Union of India, case no. 4 titled as Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India and case No. 1 of 1997, titled as Amar Nath Vs. Union of India etc. Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Court on Sd/-Gurdev Singh this 8th day of May, 1998 Arbitrator, District Judge, Gurdaspur.”

[2] The short grievance at the instance of appellants-Union of India is with respect to the award of benefit of solatium to the respondents-

landowners.

[3] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s)

made on behalf of the appellants-Union of India.

[4] In the present case, land owned by the private respondents forming part of the municipal limits of Pathankot and Sujanpur was notified for defence purposes on 12.06.1964. Initially, the Govt. of Punjab vide its notification dated 08.08.1976 published on 12.08.1977, appointed the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as an Arbitrator for the purpose of determination of compensation towards the notified land including the trees and construction etc. The award was announced by the learned Arbitrator on

30.12.1977. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents-landowners approached this Court. Vide order dated 06.04.1983, the appeals were decided granting the compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per marla besides 15% solatium and interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As per the pleadings made in the present appeal, Letter Patent Appeals (LPAs) preferred before this Court were dismissed. Later, the Hon’ble Apex Court remanded back the matter for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, on 02.05.1997, the State of Punjab issued notification appointing the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur as an Arbitrator, who vide its award dated 08.05.1998 disposed of the arbitration proceedings. Aggrieved against the same, present appeal has been preferred.

[5] The short grouse raised on behalf of the appellants is that the respondents-landowners were not entitled for award of solatium benefit.

[6] A perusal of record shows that the land in question was notified for defen