1 The Appellant has by the pulpit of this Civil Appeal assailed the JUDGMENT
Judgment and final Order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad) in CMA No. 1986 of
2003, rendered in the matter of Syed Abdul Saleem v. The Government of
Andhra Pradesh, wherein the appeal preferred by the Respondents herein
was allowed by the High Court, which enhanced the rate of compensation
from Rs.6/- per sq. yard awarded by the Learned Arbitrator, to Rs.12/- per
sq. yard along with the award of 30% solatium and interest at 9% from the
date of possession, i.e., 28.07.1970. The subject lands, situated at Village
Ibrahimbagh District, Hyderabad, were acquired for setting up of an
Artillery Centre at Golconda. The Ministry of Defence, Government of
India, accorded its sanction dated 1.12.1969 for the acquisition of land
admeasuring 1181.70 acres, at an estimated total cost approximating
Rs.35,45,100/-. The lands of the Respondents, admeasuring 2 acres 28
guntas in Revenue Sy. No. 94, and 1 acre 27 guntas in Revenue Sy.No. 95,
totaling 4 acres and 15 guntas, were acquired under the provisions of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 by the
Central Government. The Form ‘J’ Notification was published on
22.07.1971. The Competent Authority, viz., the Collector, Hyderabad, offered Rs.39,930/- as JUDGMENTcompensation in respect of 4 acres 15 guntas, by fixing the rate at Rs.2/- per sq. yard. Further, the Collector also granted
interest at 4% p.a. from the date of publication of ‘J’ Notice to the date of
payment; an amount of Rs.45,295.90 was deposited by SDC, LA (Defence)
in the Court, vide letter dated 03.02.1975.
2 Dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Respondents thereafter
requested for the appointment of a Statutory Arbitrator. The Government
appointed the Arbitrator on 21.10.1980, with a direction to him to dispose of
the matter within four months. As the sole Arbitrator was unable to dispose
of the matter within the prescribed period, the Government once again
appointed an Arbitrator on 11.11.1999 to complete the exercise. The
Arbitrator enhanced the compensation from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.6/- per
sq. yard along with solatium of 30% and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of
taking possession of the acquired land, i.e., 28.07.1970, up till the date of
payment. The Arbitrator recorded in his Award that after the failure of the
first Arbitrator to dispose of the matter within a period of four months, the
Government took 19 years to appoint another Arbitrator. The Arbitrator
observed: “it is no doubt true that the matter was stayed by the Hon’ble High
Court for some years on account of proceedings initiated by the claimants 1
and 2 herein. But, even after the above aspect is taken into consideration, it is very clear that the Government is not diligent in prosecuting the matter”. The fact of undue delay in the institution of arbitral proceedings having been
determined, the Arbitrator applied the principle enunciated in Union of India
v. Hari Krishan Khosla (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149, whereto we shall advert
shortly, and awarded the aforesaid payment of solatium and interest.
3 Dissatisfied with the Award, the Respondents filed an appeal before
the High Court; Cross Objections were preferred by the Appellant. The
High Court allowed the Respondents’ Appeal while dismissing the Cross
Objections of the Appellant and enhanced the compensation from Rs.6/- per
sq. yard to Rs.12/- per sq. yard and upheld the Arbitrator’s Award granting
solatium of 30% and interest at 9%. The High Court also placed reliance on
this Court’s judgment in Hari Krishna Khosla.
4 The questions of law raised by the Appellant before us are threefold:
Firstly, whether the Court was justified in granting solatium and interest
without considering the fact that there is no provision for awarding these
under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952;
secondly, whether the Court was right in ignoring the fact that the
Constitutional validity of non-inclusion of the provision for the payment of
solatium and interest in the Act has been upheld by this Court in the case of
Hari Krishna Khosla and finally, whether the Court was right in enhancing the compensation from JUDGMENTRs.6/- per sq. yard to Rs.12/- per sq. yard without
fully appreciating the Cross Objections and evidence proffered by the
Appellant?
5 Per contra, the Respondents submit that Hari Krishna Khosla, and its
succeeding judgments, all indicate that there is a settled alcove of equity in
the jurisprudence pertaining to land requisition. This Court has recognized
the hardships suffered by affected/dispossessed parties in requisition
proceedings, in cases of extensive delay in the disbursal of compensation, or,
as in this case, delay in the initiation and eventuation of proceedings under
the statute, and has equitably extended the twin ameliorators of solatium and
interest on compensation, albeit their not being available under the
requisition Statute.
6 The submissions of both parties hereto having been adumbrated, we
find that the Appeal is without merit. The Appellant presents as
exceptionable the High Court’s enhancement of compensation. But the
chiefly objectionable aspect to the impugned judgment and order is, in the
submission of the Appellant, the High Court’s extra-legal Award of solatium
and interest on the principal statutory compensation awardable under the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. This Court has previously, JUDGMENTin Hari Krishan Khosla, conducted a thorough
analysis of the features of the aforementioned Act apropos the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and providing cogent rationales therefore, in our
humble opinion rightly labelled as “odious” any attempt to make a black-
letter comparison of the two enactments. Whilst upholding the
Constitutionality of the Requisitioning Act absent the provisions therein of
the award of solatium and interest, the Court nevertheless, relying upon a
previous pronouncement in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union of India
[disposed of by this Court on 11.02.1985 in Civil Appeal Nos. 470 & 471 of
1985], found it just and proper to uphold award of both solatium (at 30%)
and 9 % interest along with the principal statutory compensation, where
appointment of the Statutory Arbitrator had been delayed by 16 years.
“Equity is a mitigant to the harshness of common law” is a well-known
Common Law maxim. Several Benches of this Court, from Hari Krishan
Khosla in 1993; the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Chajju Ram
(2003) 5 SCC 568, in the context of the Defence of India Act, 1971; Union
of India v. Parmal Singh (2009) 1 SCC 618 and thereafter in Dilawar Singh
v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 357, have consistently applied mutatis
mutandis the equity resting in this maxim to mitigate the harshness of this
requisition statute, thereby providing for payment of interest and solatium to affected/ dispossessed parties in cases of extensive protraction, where the statute ex facie provides for neither of these ameliorators. The precedential
position being unquestionably clear, we find that the facts before us,
displaying dilation by the Appellant of 19 years in reappointment of the
statutory Arbitrator, command and not merely commend the application of
the precedent. We, therefore, sustain the Judgment of the High Court, and
confirm the award of solatium and interest therein, along with the principal
compensation amount.
7 Appeal is dismissed. Since this Appeal stood covered on all fours,
the Appellant shall pay costs to the Respondents.
[ SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] New Delhi, February 02, 2015.