(O&M) Joginder Singh Vs Union of India

By way of present appea l , challenge has been laid to an award d a ted 08.02.2000 passed by A rbitrator-cum-Ld. District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby market value in f avour of appellants-landowners on acco u nt of acquisition of their la n d situated in Village Daulat p ur, Tehsil a n d Distt. Pathankot was deter m ined at Rs. 450/- per marla. 2. Briefly stating, the land owned by the predecessor - ininterest of the appellants was ac q uired under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of I m movable Properties Act, 1 9 52 (hereina f ter referred to as 1952 Act) vide notification dated 22.12.1 9 69 and the landowners wer e awarded compensation. B e ing dissatisfied, Reference under Sectio n 8 of 1952 Act was invoke d at the instance of landowners which ca m e to be decided by the statutory

¶12

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.13 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

FAO-974-2000 (O&M) [2]

¶14

arbitrato r on 08.02.2000 and the co m pensation was determined @ Rs.450/per marla. 3. By way of present a ppeal, the abovementio n ed award/ju d gment dated 08.02.2000 p assed by Arbitrator has b e en assailed with a prayer for further enh a ncement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in vie w of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Ap e x Court in Dilawar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. , r e ported as (2010) 14 SCC 357, there b e ing delay in appointment of Arbitrator, the appella n ts/ landown e rs were entitled for grant of solatium and interest. Relevant para 7 t h ereof been relied upon by le a rned counsel for the appellants is extrac t ed hereunder:-

¶15

“7. It is notewort h y that the High Court of Pu nj ab and Haryana has in Union of India v. In d er Singh and An r . in LPA No. 1918 of 1989 a nd connected m a tters upheld grant of solat i um and interest i n regard to a similar acquisi t ion made in ter m s of a notification issued in January 197 0 . While doing so the H igh Court placed reliance upon its deci s ion in Shankar S i ngh and Others v. Union of India 1988 (1 ) PLR 163 Mr. Subramani u m, learned Solici t or General fairly conceded t hat no appeal ha s been preferred by the Unio n of India against t he decision in Shankar Sin g h's case (supra) o r that delivered in Union of I n dia v. Inder Singh and Anr (supra). In that vie w of

¶16

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.13 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO-974-2000 (O&M) [3]

¶18

the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that ther e was an inordinate delay of 16 years in the a p pointment of an Arbitrator in the present cas e s, we have no hesita t ion in holding tha t the principle laid down by t his Court in the d e cisions referred to above w o uld entitle the land owners to the benefit of solatium and interest especially when the owners who have lost land in si m ilar circumstance s and for the same purpose h a ve been given su c h a benefit.”

¶19

4.1. Leaned counsel further s u bmits that the market valu e of the acq u ired land was also required to be enhanced in the wak e of observat ions made by the learned Court below wherein it w as specific a lly recorded that the acquired land forming part of the revenue estate of Village Daulatpur w as situated within the munic ipal limits of Pathankot and was even su r rounded by establishments l ike College, ITI etc. 5. On the other hand, lear n ed counsel appearing for the respond e nt Union of India while r e ferring to the decision dated 24.02.1 9 94 passed in Civil Appeal N o .3787-1988, titled as Union of India Vs. Shri Puran Singh and others , wherein the present appellan t s were also party/ respo n dents, submits that award of solatium and interest was specifically declined and thus at this stage, the app e llants were not entitled for t he said relief. He also sub m its that the landowners were not entitle d for any enhancement qua the

¶20

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.13 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

FAO-974-2000 (O&M) [4]

¶22

market v alue as the Hon’ble Ape x Court in its decision dated 12.02.1 9 96 was pleased to uphold th e market value towards the l a nd acquired in Village Daulatpur @ Rs.300/- per marla and thus, t he present a ppeal is liable to be dismiss e d. 6. I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper-book. 7. In the present case, in ter m s of observations made by t he Hon’ble A pex Court vide its decision d ated 24.02.1994 passed in C ivil Appeal N o.3787-1988, wherein the a ppellants were also party, the award o f solatium and interest canno t be granted in their favour. T he relevant portion of the decision d ated 24.02.1994 is extracted hereund e r:-

¶23

“The points raised in this appeal are squarely cover e d by the judgment in Union of India Vs. Hari Krishan Khosla (1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 149). The result is that the claima n ts under the provisions of th e Acquisition and Requisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 are no eligible to cla i m solatium @ 15% and inte re st @ 6% awardable under t h e provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However, un d er Section 8, the claimant is e n titled to seek appointment of a n arbitrator to decide the compensation. The learned sin g le Judge of the High Court fol l owing the ratio of the Full Ben c h of the High Court of Pun j ab & Haryana which was n o w reversed by this Court in the judgment under referen c e directed the Government t o appoint and refer the matter to the Arbitrator to fix the ma r ket value and also solatium a n d interest @ 15% and 6% res p ectively on the enhanced mar k et value. As a consequence, t h e Arbitrator was appointed a n d in his award dt. March 9 , 1987 in Arbitration Case N o.

¶24

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.13 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

FAO-974-2000 (O&M) [5]

¶26

16/867, the Arbitrator not o nly enhanced the market val u e but also awarded solatium and interest as directed by t h e single Judge. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it is settled law that the claima n ts are not entitled to payment of solatium and interest on th e market value determined un d er the Act. Accordingly, the a w ard of the Arbitrator is set asi d e. The matter now stands re m itted to the Arbitrator to fix t h e market value afresh in the l ight of the law laid down by t h is Court in the above case an d decide it according to law. T h e appeal is allowed to the above extent. The parties a re directed to bear their own c o sts.”

¶27

Furthermore, once the Hon’ble Apex Court has alre a dy upheld t h e market value @ Rs.300/- p er marla qua the land acqui r ed within t h e revenue estate of Vill a ge Daulatpur relating to the acquisiti o n carried out vide notification issued in October 1969 un d er the provisions of 1952 Act, , the app e llants whose land was acquired on 22.1 2 .1969 and have already b e en awarded market value @ Rs.450/per marla; the impugned aw a rd calls for no interference. 9. The present appeal being devoid of merits, is t h us dismiss e d. 10. Pending miscellaneous a pplication(s), if any, shall a lso

¶28

stand di s posed of.

¶29

11.08.2 0 25 ( HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/reason e d ? Yes/No Whether reportable ? Yes/No

¶30

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.13 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Joginder Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Joginder Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Jain and Another Vs Shashi

Sher Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yash Pal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Parminder Kaur Walia Vs Mohammad Nazir and Others

Smt. Narinder Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Kushal Singh Vs Union of India and Others