R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) VARIOUS issues have been raised in these petitions directed against orders passed by the Competent Authority and Arbitrator in determining compensation payable to petitioners under Defence of India Act. Land situated in villages Chakmaidapatti, Gayasuddinpur and Harwara, Tehsil Chad, District Allahabad were requisitioned in 1964 under Defence of India Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as the Act). In 1978 it was acquired permanently. Numerous claims were referred for compensation. They were decided by competent Authority on 11th December, 1972. Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority petitioners moved application for arbitration under Rule 9 of the U.P. Defence of India (Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. It was decided by the Arbitrator under section 37 of the Act, read with Rule 10 of U.P. Defence of India (Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 on 10th August, 1981. The Arbitrator enhanced the amount of compensation. The order has been challenged both by petitioners and State. Both group of writ petitions are being disposed of by this order.
(2.) ONE of the claims was for awarding solatium and interest on compensation. It was repelled by the Arbitrator as there was no provision in Defence of India Act analogous to Section 23 and section 28 of Land Acquisition Act. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly, that in taking this view the Arbitrator committed manifest error of law. According to him provisions of Sec. 23 of Land Acquisition Act were applicable for requisition or Acquisition under the Defence of India Act as well, and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the same. Reliance has been placed on Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 1983 Sri Goverdhan and others v. Union of India and another decided by the Supreme Court of India on January 31, 1983. It was held by the Supreme Court: The payment of solatium at 15% is obligatory under the Land Acquisition Act and for the same reason it should be regarded as obligatory under the Defence of India Act....As regards the claim of interest, we think that it is only right that interest should be awarded to the appellants for the entire period upon the date of payment. In view of this decision the controversy is no more res Integra and the order of the Arbitrator so far as he did not award solatium and interest is liable to be quashed. Further in view of Magunohair, Collector 1968 Gujrat P1 solatium shall be added to compensation for calculation of interest.
(3.) ANOTHER submission is that since sub -section (2) of Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act has been amended in 1982 and the amendment is retrospective it applies to proceedings pending either before the Arbitrator or this Court therefore, petitioner is entitled to enhanced solatium and interest. Reliance has been placed on Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, : 1979 B.L.J.R. 48 : A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1576. This submission has no merit. Hon'ble Supreme Court was construing in that case the retrospectively given to sub -section (2) of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that if an award was pending before any authority including the High Court or the Supreme Court then the provisions of the Act applied. Since what is pending in this Court is writ petition and not an award, principle does not apply.;