G.R. Majithia and H.K. Sandhu, JJ.
1. This order disposes of C.W.P. Nos. 15673, 15674, 15675 of 1992, 5565, 5566, 5567, 5568 and 5570 of 1993.
2. A reference to relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in C.W.P. No. 15673 of 1992.
3. The petitioners have sought a mandate to the respondents to release them the payments on account of solatium and interest as assessed by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 7 of 1988, decided on March 11, 1989, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Indisputably, a large chunk of land belonging to the petitioners in these petitions was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) and it was acquired in the year 1970. The Arbitrator appears to have been appointed as envisaged by Section 8 of the Act in the year 1988 and he rendered the award on March 11, 1989. The authorities have not released to the petitioners payment on account of solatium and interest as assessed by the Arbitrator and this necessitated filing of this and the connected writ petitions.
5. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Defence Estate Office, Pathankot Circle, Pathankot. It is pleaded therein that the validity of the Arbitrator's award dated March 11, 1989 has been challenged in this Court through F.A.O. No. 945 of 1989 (Union of India v. Jamit Rai etc.) and the same is pending adjudication. It is further stated that in view of the judgment of the apex Court in S.L.P. Nos. 1129-31/75 (Union of India v. Hari krishan Khosla (dead) through LRs). decided on September 16, 1992, the claimant-petitioners are not entitled to any solatium and interest in respect of the land acquired under the Act. The plea of the petitioners in para 5 of the writ petition that they were not made any payment towards compensation with respect to the land acquired by the respondents in the yeas 1970 has not been controverted.
6. Para 5 of the writ petition reads as under:-
'That despite the aforementioned letter as also repeated visits of the petitioners, the respondents failed to make any payment whatsoever and till today the compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioners despite the acquisition of their land in the year 1970.'
And the corresponding reply to the aforesaid para is in the following terms:-
'That in reply to contents of para 5 of the writ petition it is respectfully submitted that the UOI has filed FAO No. 945/89 alongwith stay application and the said FAO is still pending decision in this Hon'ble Court. The solatium and interest as awarded by the arbitrator is not payable as it has been held by Supreme Court of India vide their order dated 16.9.1.992.'
It is also not controverted that after the award was rendered by the Arbitrator on March 11, 1989, the respondents have not made the payments payable under the award till today.
7. A plea which is not controverted by the respondents in the written statement will be deemed to have been admitted by the latter. Thus, it is held that the respondents have not made any payment towards compensation to the petitioners after the acquisition of their land in the year 1970 and the rendering of the award by the arbitrator on March 11,1989.
8. Learned counsel for the State very fairly stated at the Bar that all the payments under the award excluding solatium and interest would be made to the petitioners expeditiously. As regards the payment on account of solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator under his award dated March 11, 1989, he submitted that the same were not payable in view of the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Civil Appeals No. 1129-31/75, decided, on September 6, 1992.
9. The only question which arises for determination is whether the claimant-petitioners are entitled to payment of solatium and interest as assessed by the Arbitrator vide his award dated March 11, 1989. The uncontroverted facts, reproduced supra, indicate that the land of the petitioners had been acquired as far back as 1970 and the arbitrator rendered the award on March 11, 1989 and till State took 18 long years to appoint the arbitrator. In somewhat identical circumstances, the apex Court, while disposing of Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-94 of 1989 and 2674-85 of 1.989, alongwith Civil Appeal Nos. 1129-31 of 1975 (Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) by LRs), decided on September 16,1992 observed thus:-
'Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-94/89 & 2674-85/89:
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 and ors. v. Union of India and ors.(Civil Appeal Nos. 470 and 471 of 1985, disposed of by this Court on 11th February, 1985). This 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 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.'
These appeals will stand dismissed accordingly.'
The learned counsel for the Union of India could not point out any distinguishing features in the instant cases for not applying the ratio of the apex Court's judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-94/89 & 2674-85/89. Respectfully following the rule of law laid down by the apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-94 & 2674-85/89, we do not think the Arbitrator was in error in allowing solatium and interest to the petitioners in the instant cases. The award of the Arbitrator so far as solatium and interest has been allowed to the claimant-petitioners is fair, just and unexceptional. The respondents are directed to release all the payments payable under the award to the petitioners within three months from today, failing which they would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount.
11. On March 4, 1993, at the request of the learned counsel for the Union of India, we had directed that F.A.O. Nos. 892, 919 and 945 of 1989 filed against the award of the Arbitrator dated March 11, 1989, by the Union of India be set down for hearing with these writ petitions. Besides these three appeals, F.A.O. Nos. 897, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 966 and 967 of 1989 filed by the Union of India as well as by the claimants were ordered to be heard with CWP No. 15673 of 1992 and the connected writ petitions. Learned Counsel for the Union of India submitted that approximately 400 First Appeals from Orders had been filed by the Union of India against the award of the Arbitrator dated March 11, 1989 and those had not come up for motion hearing and had not been enlisted for disposal with these petitions. We accordingly direct that F.A.O. Nos. 892, 919, 945, 897, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 966 and 967 of 1989 be deleted from the bunch of these writ petitions and the same would be disposed of alongwith identical appeals which are stated to be 400 in numbers.
12. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions succeed and are allowed as indicated above.