UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDR. ASKET SINGH & ORS.

                  [2024] 6 S.C.R. 227 : 2024 INSC 409

                           Union of India & Anr.
                                     v.
                          Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.
                   (Civil Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 of 2016)
                                  01 May 2024
                [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the challenge to the relief of solatium and interest
       on the compensation amount granted by the High Court.

                                    Headnotes
       Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
       1952 – s. 8(1)(a) – Compensation – Delay in payment of –
       Grant of solatium and interest by the High Court – Challenge
       to:
       Held: Right to hold immovable property is no longer a fundamental
       right but is a right u/Art. 300A – On facts, land owned by the first
       respondent stood vested in the Central Government in the year
       1964 – Offer for payment of compensation was made by the
       Collector belatedly after 12 years in 1976 – Delay of more than
       12 years attributable solely to the Central Government – Since
       the respondents declined to accept the offer, the Arbitrator was
       appointed in 1976, it took slightly less than 20 years to conclude
       the proceedings – Nothing on record that the proceedings were
       delayed due to any conduct attributable to the first respondent –
       Delay in appointing the arbitrator must be attributed to the Central
       Government, as the Central Government took 12 years to offer
       compensation – In effect, market value prevailing on the date of
       acquisition was paid to the owners after lapse of more than 30
       years from the date of vesting – As there are no provisions under
       the 1952 Act to compensate the owner for the delay in making
       payment of compensation, in such cases, solatium and interest
       must be paid by the Central Government – Compensation must
       be paid to the owner of the acquired property within a reasonable
       time from the date on which the acquired property vested in the
       acquiring body – Requirement of making payment of compensation
       within a reasonable time from the date of vesting must be read

* Author
228                                                         [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       into the 1952 Act – Long delay of 12 years even in offering
       compensation would attract arbitrariness which is prohibited
       by Art. 14 – Considering the huge delay involved in payment
       of compensation, the High Court rightly granted solatium and
       interest – As the first respondent has been paid compensation
       7 years back, no costs imposed – Constitution of India – Arts.
       14, 300A. [Paras 7-10]

                              Case Law Cited
            Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union of India; Union
            of India v. Chajju Ram [2003] 3 SCR 647 : (2003) 5
            SCC 568; Dilawar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
            [2010] 12 SCR 1059 : (2010) 14 SCC 357; Union of
            India v. Hari Krishan Khosla [1992] Supp. 1 SCR 620 :
            1993 Supp. 2 SCC 149 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
       Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

                             List of Keywords
       Compensation; Delay in payment of compensation; Grant of
       solatium; Grant of interest; Right to hold immovable property;
       Fundamental right; Delay; Date of acquisition; Arbitrariness;
       Costs.

                            Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1636-1637
       of 2016
       From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2015 of the High Court
       of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 2307 and 2673
       of 1998
                         Appearances for Parties
       Mukul Singh, Indira Bhakar, Sharath Nambiar, Shubham Saxena,
       Vineet Singh, Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, T. S. Sabarish, Udai
       Khanna, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for
       the Appellants.
       Ms. Rajshree Bhatnagar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                        229

             Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                Judgment
     Abhay S. Oka, J.
     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 v. Union
230                                                                     [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of India1 and Union of India v. Chajju Ram2 which were followed
       by this Court in a decision in the case of Dilawar Singh & Ors.
       v. Union of India & Ors.3, 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 Singh3 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 v. Hari Krishan Khosla4. 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
              this Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram2 where a similar
              attack was mounted against the constitutional validity of
              the Defence of India Act, 1971 but repelled by this Court
              relying upon the decision in Hari Krishan Khosla4.


1    decided on 11th February, 1985 in Civil Appeal No.470-471 of 1985
2    [2003] 3 SCR 647 : (2003) 5 SCC 568
3    [2010] 12 SCR 1059 : (2010) 14 SCC 357
4    [1992] Supp. 1 SCR 620 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           231

             Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.


           10. What is noteworthy is that in both these matters this
           Court had made a distinction between cases in which
           there was inordinate delay in the appointment of an
           arbitrator and consequent delay in the determination of
           the amount of compensation payable to the owners and
           other case where there was no such delay. In para 79 of
           the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla4, this
           Court observed:
                      “79. This is a case in which for 16 years
                      no arbitrator was appointed. We think it is
                      just and proper to apply the principle laid
                      down in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v.
                      Union of India1. The Court held as under:
                           Having regard to the peculiar
                           facts and circumstances of the
                           present case and particularly in
                           view of the fact that the
                           appointment of the arbitrator
                           was not made by the Union of
                           India for a period of 16 years,
                           we think this is a fit case in which
                           solatium at the rate of 30% of
                           the amount of compensation
                           and interest at the rate of 9%
                           per annum should be awarded
                           to the appellants. We are making
                           this order having regard to the
                           fact that the law has in the
                           meanwhile been amended with
                           a view to providing solatium at
                           the rate of 30% and interest at
                           the rate of 9% per annum.”
7.   As noted in the said decision, there is no provision for grant of
     solatium and interest under the 1952 Act.
8.   It is true that the right to hold immovable property is no longer a
     fundamental right but it is a right under Article 300A of the Constitution
     of India. Considering the peculiar provisions of the 1952 Act, the
232                                                          [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       land owned by the first respondent stood vested in the Central
       Government on 3rd April, 1964. Therefore, the compensation ought
       to have been paid to the first respondent within a reasonable time
       from 3rd April, 1964. Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
       8, there is a provision to decide the amount of compensation by an
       agreement. Such agreement could have been arrived at, provided
       the Central Government had submitted their proposal or offer to the
       first respondent. However, the offer was actually made by the Collector
       in August, 1976. Thus, there was no attempt made by the Central
       Government to bring about the consensus on the market value for
       a period of more than 12 years. Inordinate time of 12 years was
       taken by the Government to offer compensation to the first respondent.
       We must record here that this delay of more than 12 years is
       attributable solely to the Central Government. After the Arbitrator
       was appointed on 8th October, 1976, it took slightly less than 20 years
       to conclude the proceedings. There is nothing placed on record to
       show that the proceedings were delayed due to any conduct
       attributable to the first respondent. The delay in appointing the
       arbitrator must be attributed to the Central Government, as the
       Central Government took 12 years to offer compensation. In effect,
       market value prevailing on the date of acquisition was paid to the
       owners after lapse of more than 30 years from the date of vesting.
9.     After having perused the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we find
       that as there are no provisions under the 1952 Act to compensate
       the owner for the delay in making payment of compensation, a
       direction was issued by this Court that in such cases, solatium and
       interest must be paid by the Central Government. The main reason
       for taking the said view is that the compensation must be paid to
       the owner of the acquired property within a reasonable time from
       the date on which the acquired property vested in the acquiring
       body. The requirement of making payment of compensation within
       a reasonable time from the date of vesting must be read into the
       1952 Act. In fact, such a long delay of 12 years even in offering
       compensation will attract arbitrariness which is prohibited by Article
       14 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent had an option
       of even seeking quashing of the acquisition on the ground of this
       arbitrariness which may have violated his rights under Article 300A
       of the Constitution of India.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                       233

             Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.


10. Considering the huge delay involved in payment of compensation,
    the High Court has rightly granted solatium and interest in terms of
    the decisions of this Court. In fact, we are surprised to note that the
    appellants have dragged the first respondent to this Court. There
    is absolutely no merit in these appeals. As the first respondent
    has been paid compensation 7 years back, we are refraining from
    imposing costs.
11. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.


     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                  Result of the case:
                                                         Appeals dismissed.