IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, omitted to pay solatium and interest, in addition to compensation and therefore, a claimant is not entitled to solatium and interest.
2. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-Application for impleadment allowed.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in CIMA No. 72 of 1988.

3. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is: whether the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest under the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act")?

4. The facts in nutshell are that land admeasuring 399 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Villages Rampur, Talwal and Goverdhan Plain was acquired for public purposes, viz., defence, by publication of notification under Section 7 of the Act on October 16, 1986. The Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri in his award dated November 3, 1986 awarded compensation @ Rs. 21,000/- in respect of lands situated in villages Rampur and Talwal and Rs. 10,000/- per kanal in respect of land situated in village Goverdhan Pain with 10 escalation on account of passage of time. The compensation was accordingly paid but feeling dissatisfied therewith, the claimants-landowners sought reference under Section 8 of the Act to the arbitrator who by his award dated March 8, 1987 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,000/- per kanal in respect of lands in village Rampur and Talwal and Rs. 40,000/- per kanal in respect of land in village Goverdhan Pain; he also awarded 15 solatium and 4 interest per annum on the enhanced compensation. When the appellants questioned the same by filing an appeal in the High Court, it by impugned judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal holding that no discrimination could be made between the owners whose lands are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and owners whose lands are acquired under the Act and hence the arbitrator was justified in awarding solatium and interest to the land-owner-respondents. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. The admitted position is that prior to the acquisition properties were under requisition under Section 3 of the Act. Shri Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the Act did not confer power upon the arbitrator or the court to award solatium and interest. The controversy is no longer res integra as a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. District Judge, Udhampur & Ors.1, had held that the claimants are not entitled to solatium and interest under the Act. The ratio in Union of India v. Hari Krishna Khosla2 was applied wherein the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, the "Central Act") similarly did not provide for payment of solatium and interest. Thus, it is contended, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that the arbitrator and the court have no power to award solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation under the Act.

6. On the other hand, argument of Shri Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the second respondent, adopted by Shri Thakur, learned senior counsel for the first respondent, is that the Act is a measure of appropriation of the private property of citizens though for public purpose. When the owner is deprived of his possession and enjoyment of his property payment of solatium and interest for compulsory acquisition is integral to the compulsory acquisition. In equity, the owner is entitled to restitution for dispossession and enjoyment with interest in lieu thereof. This Court had held in Satinder Singh & Ors. v. Amrao Singh & Ors.3, that from the date of dispossession till the date of receipt of compensation it is an implied agreement to pay interest on the value of the property. The right to receive interest is in place of right to retain possession. Unless the statute specifically and expressly excludes payment of interest and solatium the land-holder is entitled to the interest on the amount quantified towards compensation and solatium; denial thereof would