Judgment:
T.P.S. Mann, J.
1. By a common judgment, this Court Proposes to dispose of the present revision as well as Civil Revision Nos. 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467 and 1468 of 2005, as all of them arise out of a common order passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda on December 02, 2004. However, the facts are taken from the present revision.
2. Land measuring about 632 acres situated in village Mehna, Tehsil and District Bathinda was requisitioned on 7.12.1972, under Section 23(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act')- Subsequently, it was acquired on 28.12.1974 under Section 30 of the Act. Vide order dated 6.2.1975 the Competent Authority assessed the compensation as follows:
(a) Flat rate of 40 Karam the road irrespective of : Rs. 13,000/- per acreclassification of land(b) Nehri/Chahi : Rs. 11,000/- per acre(c) Barani : Rs. 7,500/- per acre(d) Gair Mumkin/Banjar : Rs. 3,840/- per acre(e) Chahi Mustar : Rs. 9,000/- Per acre
3. Aggrieved of the assessment arrived at by the Competent Authority, the respondents filed application under Section 3(i)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Having been so appointed as an Arbitrator, learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda passed an award on 31.3.1983 and determined the market value of the acquired land as under:
(a) Nehri, Chahi, Nehri Chahi andChahi Mustar land : Rs. 21,000/- per acre(b) Barani : Rs. 17,600/- per acre(c) Banjar and Gair Mumkin : Rs. 8,800/- per acre
Besides, 15% solatium and 6% interest on the total amount of compensation and solatium with effect from the date of acquisition, dated 20.1.1975 was awarded. The respondents then filed an appeal in this regard which was, however, dismissed on 22.8.1984. Thereafter, they filed a letters Patent Appeal, which was, disposed of on 12.12.1981 in which the market value was determined as under:
(a) For the land situated on either side ofNational Highway : Rs 16.80 per sq. ydLeading from Bathinda to Barnala upto a depth of 500 meters(b) For the land up to a depth 500 meters from themunicipal Limits/fencing of the Cantonment or from Rs. 16.00 per sq. yd.the boundary of III Phase of Urban Estate of Bathinda Town.(c) For rest of the acquired land. Rs. 8.50 per sq. yd.
The Letters Patent Bench also granted solatium at the rate of 30% and increased rate of interest as per Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended).
4. The respondents then moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the petitioner also followed likewise so as to seek the setting aside of the order passed by the High Court while enhancing the compensation. The challenge of the Union of India in its Special Leave Petitions filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only against the grant of solatium and interest in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (D) by L.Rs.J : 1992(2)SCALE621 . While issuing notice in the S.L.P. the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim stay with regard to the amount of solatium and interest. Both the set of cases, one filed by the petitioner and the other by the respondents, were finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.3.1995 by setting aside the order of the High Court to the extent of granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest as well as the award of the Arbitrator granting solatium and interest. The respondents were held entitled to the principal amount of compensation determined by the High Court and the Arbitrator. Pursuant thereto, the Union of India deposited a consolidated cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,22,86,360/- on 30.3.1996 with the executing Court. The land owners later on sought recalling of the order dated 2.3.1995 but their applications were dismissed on 11.11.2002.
5. In the meantime, after rendering of the decision by this Court in their Letters Patent Appeal, the respondents applied for execution of the award. They also claimed that their land fell within the 1st/2nd category, being within 500 meters from the National Highway leading from Bathinda to Barnala and also within 500 meters from the fencing of the cantonment and as such they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 16.80 per sq. yd./Rs. 16.00 per sq. yd. However, vide impugned order, learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda dismissed the objections raised by the Union of India that the claimants were not entitled to the benefits of solatium and interest granted by the High Court even in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (supra). Accordingly, Union of India was directed to make the payment as awarded by the High Court while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal. The claimants/respondents were also found successful in proving that their land fell in 1st and 2nd category, as it was situated within 500 meters, from the National Highway and also within 500 meters from the fencing of the Cantonment. Thus, the present revision filed by the Union of India under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. It has come in the testimony of Rachhpal Singh DHW-I that the land, as comprised in Rect. Nos. 46, 88, 85 and 89, fell down 500 meters from the fencing of the Cantonment out of which Rect. Nos. 85, 88 and 89 also fell within 500 meters from the Bathinda-Barnala Road. Similarly, lands situated in Rect. Nos. 105, 110, 111, 112, 32, 33, 103, 43, 92, 31, 45, 91, 90, 91, 92, 103 and 43 fell within a distance of 500 meters of Cantonment/Bathinda Barnala Road. Another witness produced by the decree-holders, namely, Mohinder Singh DHW-2 stated that the entire land fell within 500 meters from the fencing of Cantonment and, therefore, the land owners were entitled to compensation for the same at the rate of Rs. 16 per sq. yd. Site plans Exhs.DHW1/A and DHW/2 corroborate the stand taken by DHW1 and DHW-2.
8. The judgment debtors made a half hearted attempt to wriggle out of the categories created by the Collector. However, when the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal created three different belts, first one consisting of the land situated on either side of National Highway leading from Bathinda to Barnala upto a depth of 500 meters, second one of land upto a depth of 500 meters from the municipal Limits/fencing of the Cantonment or from the boundary of 3rd Phase of Urban Estate of Bathinda Town and the last one for rest of the acquired land, these belts will have to prevail. Even otherwise, there is no material available on the record from which it could be determined that the belts created had no relevance once the matter stands decided by the Letters Patent Bench.
9. In view of the above, the finding arrived at by the learned executing Court in respect of the claimants falling in different belts does not call for any interference and is, accordingly, maintained.
10. The main issue in the case is regarding the benefits of solatium and interest. To begin with, learned Arbitrator had granted solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate 6% on the total amount of compensation and solatium. These rates were enhanced by this Court while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal by holding that the claimants were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and increased rate of interest as per Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended).
11. The controversy regarding payment of solatium and. interest has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) as well as in Sadhu Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. S.L.P. No. 3716 of 1993, decided on 2.3.1995. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
In view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (1993) Supp.2 S.C.C. 149, the appeals of the Union of India are allowed. The awards and decrees of the High Court to the extent of granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest and the award of the Arbitrator granting solatium and interest are set aside. The claimants are entitled to the payment of principal amount of compensation determined by the High Court and the Arbitrator. The Union of India is directed to make the payment within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
12. Learned executing court held in the impugned order that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) shall have no effect in view of the circumstances of the case as benefits of solatium and interest were granted to the claimants about 13 years back and that the directions issued by it, i.e. the executing court after the framing of the issues to pay the enhanced amount within six months had not been complied with.
13. It is true that the enhanced solatium and interest was awarded, by the Letters Patent Bench on 12.12.1991 and after the filing of the execution application, the issues were framed on 21.5.1994, but at the same time another fact, which cannot be lost sight of is that the Union of India on the one hand and the claimants on the other moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing their respective S.L.Ps. against the decision dated 12.12.1991 of the Letters Patent Bench which came to be finally disposed of on 2.3.1995 and when the notice was issued in the S.L.Ps. filed by the Union of India on 21.11.1995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted interim stay with regard to the amount of solatium and interest. The S.L.Ps. came to be finally disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.3.1995 and the orders granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest as awarded by this Court and of the solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator were set aside. The claimants were held entitled to the payment of principal amount of compensation determined by this Court and the Arbitrator. Although, the Hon'ble supreme Court had directed the Union of India to make the payment within six months from the date of the receipt of the order dated 2.3.1995, yet it was only about a year thereafter that Union of India deposited a consolidated cheque No. H-331741, dated 30.3.1996 for Rs. 1,22,86,360/- with the executing court which amount included the compensation payable to the respondents.
14. In view of the above, the objections raised by the Union of India that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of solatium and interest have been wrongly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. No such solatium and interest, as awarded by the learned Arbitrator as well as the enhanced solatium and interest as granted by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court, is payable to the respondents in view of the law laid down in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla's case (supra) as well as in Sadhu Singh case (supra).
15. Resultantly, the revisions are partly accepted. The impugned order, in so far as it relates to the finding arrived at by the executing court in regard to the land of the claimants falling in different belts, is upheld. However, as regards the objection raised by the Union of India in respect of the payment of solatium and interest, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are not entitled to the grant of solatium and interest as initially granted by the learned Arbitrator and also the enhanced solatium and interest as later on granted by this Court, while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal.