- (1.) The present appeals arise from an acquisition made under the Defence of India Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with the Rules thereunder. On 29th April, 1943, 12.84 acres of land along with several buildings, structures and other constructions were requisitioned under Rule 75A(1) of Defence of India Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') On 2nd June, 1945, the said property under requisition was acquired by the Government of India, at which point of time, a cotton mill under construction comprising of various plots, stood acquired. Thereafter, compensation proceedings under the said Act and Rules were commenced, and an Award dated 6th May, 1947 was made offering an amount of Rs.2,40,113.75p. to the appellant, who accepted the same under protest. On 8th December,1949, a reference to arbitration was made under the provisions of the said Act. An Award was ultimately passed by the learned Arbitrator awarding a sum of Rs. 14,29,366/- in the following terms : "Point No. 1 Claimant will get rent compensation at the rate of Rs 2000/- per month from June 1943 to July 1946 for 38 months. Point No. 2 Property acquired as 12.84 acres and this reference is in respect of this area. Point No. 3 Compensation for land acquired is fixed at the rate of Rs 300/- per Cottah and Rs 20,000/- for the tank excavated. Point No. 4 & 5 Compensation for the main structure is fixed at Rs 673634.50p. For the incomplete structure at Rs 76261.50P. for other structures viz. B.T. Roofed bunglow pump house reservoir etc. at Rs 40,000/- the boundary wall at Rs 43,000/- for bricks and trees at Rs 15,000/- and Rs 4,950/- respectively for the damage to films at Rs 10,000/- and removal cost of Rs 1,000/- and for miscellaneous items at Rs 30,000/-. Point No. 6 For the big chimney compensation is allowed at Rs 75,000/- as injurious affection. Point No. 7 & 8 Claim for injurious affection on other items allowed in part for Rs 50,000/- as per details in the body of the judgment and at 25% for 15.12 acres which comes to Rs 45,350/-. Point No. 9 Claim for compulsory damage at 15% is disallowed. Interest allowed at 6% from the date of occupation till payment. The payment already received shall be deduced from the claim allowed. The total compensation with interest as per finding in the body of the judgment is payable to Jai Kumar Karnani as managing member and Karta of Joint hindu family business, the amount is to be paid by the Rs 673684.50P. For the incomplete structure at Rs 76261.50 p. for other structures viz. B.T. Roofed bunglaw Pump house reservoir etc. at Rs 40,000/- the boundary wall at Rs 43,000/- for bricks and trees at Rs 15,000/- and Rs 4,950/- respectively for the damage to films at Rs 10,000/- and removal cost of Rs 1,000/- and for miscellaneous items at Rs 30,000/-."
(2.) From this Award, a first Appeal was filed which culminated in the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2011. Ultimately, it was held that the claimant was entitled to get a further sum of Rs.28,48,544/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforesaid sum as decreed from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands from the appellant. The appellant specifically claimed solatium, which was turned down by the impugned judgment relying on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram (dead) by Lrs. and Others, 2003 5 SCC 568.
(3.) Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has argued before us that the Defence of India Act, and Section 19 in particular, made reference to compensation that was to be paid when property was acquired under the Act read with the Rules. He has drawn our attention to Section 19, and particularly to Section 19(1)(e)(i), which applies Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alone to acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and Rules, which necessarily entailed no payment of solatium, as the said payment is referred to by sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. His argument is that the Defence of India Act read with the Rules is a pre-Constitution measure, and after Article 14 has come into effect with the enactment of the Constitution of India, this Court has in a seven-Judge Bench, namely, in Nagpur Improvement Trust And Another v. Vithal Rao And Others, 1973 1 SCC 500 held that in circumstances similar to the fact situation in the present case, it makes no difference under which Act and for which purpose land is acquired, and that discrimination depending upon the said two factors cannot possibly pass muster. He referred to various passages of the 7-Judge Bench judgment before us, and asked us to reconsider Chajju Ram's case which was followed by the High Court, as it was not in consonance with the said judgment.;