UNION OF INDIA Vs. MUNSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 5/3/1993 passed in CWP No. 316 of 1993 by the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The competent authority, viz. , the Special Land Acquisition Collector made an award under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and awarded compensation Rs. 375. 00 per kanal. This was done as early as in 1970. In 1986, Civil Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1986 was filed by the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator. The High court allowed the writ petition on 28/7/19866 and directed the appellants to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator thus appointed, by his award dated 12/12/1991 determined compensation Rs. 150. 00 per maria. He also awarded solatium 30% and interest 9% per annum for one year and on expiry thereof 15% on the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants filed an appeal in the High court which was dismissed on 20/5/1992. A Letters Patent Appeal, viz. , 392 of 1992, was filed against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the same is pending in the High court. Since the respondents challenged the award in question, the appellants sought for stay and the stay was refused. The High court directed by the impugned order dated 5/3/1993 to release the payment of the compensation forthwith in lieu of the land acquired by it subject to any order obtained otherwise by it in any appropriate proceedings. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal by special leave has been filed.

(3.) It is contended for the respondents that on failure to accept the offer of payment of compensation determined by the competent authority, viz. , the Special Land Acquisition Collector, though the respondents had not communicated in writing their refusal to accept the award, on expiry of the prescribed period, a duty was cast on the competent authority and the central government to appoint an arbitrator. Since an arbitrator was not appointed for no fault on their part, the appellants are enjoined to make good the loss by paying interest. Therefore, the appellants are not relieved from paying interest, as this court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla , despite holding that law has conferred no power on the arbitrator to award solatium and interest on the amount of compensation determined under Section 8 of the Act, had upheld in on the facts of some appeals, award of solatium and interest, as there was delay in appointment of arbitrator, which was of 16 years in those appeals. The delay here also was of 16 years.