Partly allowed

Nanku and Ors. v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Feb 2011FAO/1131/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge disposed of appeals arising from a common land acquisition. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment and allowed both appeals, implying no interest/solatium for the appellant owners and no enhancement for the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were disposed of in the terms of the Supreme Court judgment in Dilawar Singh and others, rejecting the landowners' claims for enhancement and interest/solatium.

Nanku and Ors. Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No.1131 of 1988

¶2

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 1131 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011

Nanku and others

...Appellants

Versus

Union of India and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: None for the land owners. Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for the Union of India.

¶12

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

¶13

This order will dispose of appeals bearing FAO Nos. 1131 of 1988 and 1213 of 1989, as the same arise out of common acquisition. Challenge in the present appeals is to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator, Gurdaspur. The landowners have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing the appeal the Union of India is seeking reduction thereof.

¶14

Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India in exercise of powers vide notification dated 14.06.1971 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 02.07.1971 issued under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired the land situated in revenue estate of village Tahra, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for use of defence purpose. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined by the Arbitrator @ 600/- per Kanal for barani land and 350/- per Kanal for banjar kadim land. The land owners were also held entitled to receive solatium @ 30% and interest@ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas Union

¶15

FAO No.1131 of 1988

¶16

¶17

of India is in appeal challenging the grant of interest, solatium.

¶18

No one has appeared for the landowners at the time of hearing. The only issue raised in the appeal filed by the Union of India is regarding award of interest and solatium to the landowners. A perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator placed reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this court in Hari Kishan Khosla Vs. Union of India and another, 1974, PLR 658 to award interest and solatium to the land owners.

¶19

Learned counsel for the

¶20

Union of India fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others vs Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land was assessed @ ` 350/- per marla. It was also held therein that if there was any delay in appointment of the Arbitrator, the land owners are entitled to benefits of solatium and interest.

¶21

For the reasons stated in Dilawar

¶22

Singh’s case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms.

¶23

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶24

07.02.2011 sharmila

Nanku and Ors. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanku and Ors. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudesh Nagpal Vs Jodhan Singh

Bimla Devi Vs Hy.State

Ram Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Hari Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Bansal and Co. Vs UOI etc.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Nanku & Ors.