Samaresh Banerjea, J. - (1.) The present appeal has been filed by Union of India against the judgment and order dated 22.3.90 passed by the Arbitrator appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The primary question which has come up for our consideration is whether the Arbitrator could have also allowed payment of solatium to the claimant, no provision thereof having been made under the said Act itself.
(2.) Before going into the question it is necessary to record that the appellant Union of India has also urged before us that in the matter of computing the amount of compensation to which the claimant will be entitled, the learned Arbitrator should not have valued different kinds of rates for garden, bastu and danga.
(3.) The appellant has also contended that the learned Arbitrator in the matter of fixation of such valuation of land for the purpose of assessment of compensation overlooked that large plots of land is likely to fetch lesser value than the smaller plots of land. Reliance has been placed in this connection by the learned counsel for Union of India in the case of Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1557 , wherein it was held that the prices fetched under sale deeds of small bits ought not to be made basis for determination of large extents of acquired land.;