Union Of India vs Dr. Asket Singh

2024 INSC 409 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1636-1637 OF 2016

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

DR. ASKET SINGH & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

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 26 th March,

1964 which was published in the State Government Gazette

on 3rd April, 1964. The vesting of the acquired property Signature Not Verified was complete on publication of the notice in the official Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.05.13

gazette.

18:11:18 IST Reason:

1

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

2 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 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

1. decided on 11th February, 1985 in Civil Appeal No.470-471 of 1985

2. (2003) 5 SCC 568

3. (2010) 14 SCC 357

3 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.

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

4. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149

4 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.

5

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

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

6 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

7 arbitrariness which may have violated his rights under

Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

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.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

May 01, 2024.

8