UNION OF INDIAversusDULAL CHANDRA GHOSH AND ORS.

A                             UNION OF INDIA
                                        v.
                  DULAL CHANDRA GHOSH AND ORS.

                             DECEMBER 15, 1995

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

           Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act/Rules,
    1952-Section 8(3}-Rule 9-Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of
    1984-Award of solatium and interest under jurisdiction of Tribunal-Ap-
e   poilttment of Tribunal sought by respondents-Held : Tribunal has no juris-
    diction-Yet in the facts of rlze case respondent entitled to solatium and
    interest.

        Certain disputed land was notified for acquisition and the award was
  passed by the collector. Respondent did not accept the award of the
D Collector and refused to execute any agreement in terms of Form J and
  sought for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator granted solatium
  and interest on the principal amount under the Land Acquisition Amend-
  ment Act 68 of 1984. The appellant contended that the Tribuual has no
  power and jurisdiction to award solatium and interest.
E         Dismissing the appeal, this Court

           HELD : 1. In view of the facts of the present case, Respondents are
    entitled to payment of solatium at 30 percent and interest at 6 percent on
    the enhanced compensation from the date of the application for appoint-
    ment of Arbitrator, tiU the date of the award by the Arbitrator. Though the
F
    Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 does not apply nor does the
    principle of awarding solatium and interest for the lands acquired under
    the Act arise, as the Act did not provide such a right. [794-H, 795-A]

          Harbans Singh, Shakti Dewan & Ors. v. U.O.I. , [1995] Supp. 4 SCC
G   223, relied on

          Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, JT (1992) 5 SC, 574, referred
    to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12093 of
H 1995.
                                        792
                                                                                  •
                           U.O.l. v. D.C. GHOSH                          793

     From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.91 of the Calcutta High A
Court in Original Order Tender No. 2188 of 1989.

      A.S. Nambiar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.

      S. B. Upadhyay for the Respondents.
                                                                                B
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Leave granted.

      We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The ad-
mitted facts of the case are that the land was notified for acquisition under C
Section 7 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952 (for short 'the Act') on July 10, 1968. The Collector passed his award
on March 10, 1973 and the notice was issued on Form-J to the respondents.
They did not accept the offer of the Collector nor they executed any
agreement in terms thereof. Consequently they sought for appointment of
an arbitrator under Section 8(3) read with Rule 9 of the Rules on August D
23, 1977. The arbitrator came to be appointed on September 5, 1988 who
made his award on March 14, 1989. He granted solatium and interest under
the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

        It is contended by Shri Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the         E
Union that in view of the ratio in Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, IT
(1992) 5 SC 574, the Tribunal has no power and jurisdiction to award
solatium and interest on the principal amount. We are in agreement with
the learned counsel that the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984
does not apply nor does the principle of awarding solatium and interest for
the land acquired under the Act did not provide such a right. However,          F
following the ratio of the same judgment of this Court in paragraph 74
following the ratio of another judgment referred to therein, i.e. Harbans
Singh, Shakti Devell & Ors. v. Union of llldia, [1995] Suppl. 4 SCC 223, this
Court, despite the non-applicability of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, had
directed payment of solatium at 30 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on       G
the enhanced compensation from the date of the award of the Collector
till the date of the deposit as a compensation for the delay caused by the
Union of India in making the appointment of the arbitrator.

       In view of the admitted facts of the case that the respondents as a
fact sought reference by refusing to execute the Form-J agreement and the H
    794                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A amount offered, by the Collector, and made an application on August 23,
  1977 seeking appointment of arbitrator, they would be entitled to payment
  of solatium at 30 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the enhanced
  compensation from the date of the application for appointment of ar-
  bitrator i.e. August 23, 1977 till the date of the award by the arbitrator,
B namely, March 14, 1989.
          The appeal is according disposed of. No cost.

    K.K.T.                                                Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                •