Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) The Union of India has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by Shri S. C. Basu dated 12/22 September, 1986, the Arbitrator, North 24-Parganas and South 24-Parganas and in Calcutta being Arbitration's case No. 11/1978(V) and 1/1985(V). The fact of the matter lies in a very Barrow compass. The lands of two claimants/respondents were acquired by the Union of India in terms of the provisions of Land Requisition and acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter called for the sake of gravity of the said Act). That the plots in question were requisitioned by the Land Acquisition Collector and the same were ultimately acquired is not in dispute. A compensation of Rs. 59,320/- per acre were awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The claimants/respondents being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award made reference in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The claim of the claimants appear to be that the market value of the acquired plot was Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre at the relevant period and as such the amount of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was not adequate, just and proper. In that view of the matter, the two claims petitions filed by the claimants/respondents were preferred to the aforementioned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator, Keeping in view the dispute between the parties formulated the two contentions for two points for his determination. (i) Whether the compensation assessed by the L.A. Collector was adequate and proper If not, what should be the proper compensation : (ii)Whether the Ref. claimants are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in Sections 23(2), 28 and 34 of the L.A. Act
(2.) The learned Arbitrator while fixing the marker value accepted the contention of the claimants/respondents to the effect that in a similar case and involving the self same plots, the Arbitrator has determined the market value in Case No. 26/1978 and pursuant thereto he fixed the market value of the acquired plot at the rate on Rs. 26,000/- per acre. However, the learned Arbitrator relying on the basis of a decision reported in AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 217 held that the claimants/respondents beside the market value assessed at the aforementioned rate were also entitled to solatium in terms of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Mihir Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. This appeal has been preferred from the the judgment and award passed in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1985(V) only. The learned Counsel submitted that the provision relating to grant of compensation under the said act as also the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are different. The learned Counsel in support of the aforementioned contention has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla reported in 1993 Supplementary (2) SCC page 149. Mr. Deb. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that the Arbitrator ought to have considered the provisions of sections 8(1)(3) of the Act. It was submitted that, in that view of the matter, this Court on equitable raised in this appeal is no longer res intergra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Hart Krishan Khosla (supra), the Apex Court in that case was considering the correctness or otherwise of the judgment passed by the High Court wherein it was held that the provision of the said Act in so far as the same relates to grant of compensation vis-a-vis the provision of Land Acquisition Act was discriminatory. It was held that cases of acquisition of land under Act of 1894 stand on a different footing than those where such property is subject to a prior requisition before acquisition. The matter relating to compulsory acquisition of property is governed by the doctrine of eminent domain. By reason of the said doctrine, the persons whose properties are sought to be acquired are entitled to compensation to the extent of market value. Section 8 of the said act provides for grant of market value to the concerned person. If by reason of any other statute further benefits are granted, such benefit cannot be said to be automatically applicable in case of acquisition under different acts.
(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, we agree with the contention of Mr Chakraborty that the learned Arbitrator erred in awarding solatium in favour of the claimants/respondents. So far as the contention raised by Mr. Deb is concerned, we regret that we are unable to accept such contention as the submissions of the claimants/respondents before the learned Arbitrator on the basis of an earlier award was accepted. It, therefore, cannot be said that while awarding compensation, the learned Arbitrator bad not taken into consideration the ingredients of Section 8(1)(e) of the said Act. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that keeping in view the fact that the awarded amount has not yet been paid to the claimants they would be entitled to be interest at the rates mentioned in the award till realisation subject to the condition that such interest will cease to run from the date of withdrawal in respect of such amount by the claimants/respondents. It will be open to the claimants/respondents to withdraw the balance amount in terms of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment is restricted only to Arbitration Case No. 1/1985(V). The balance amount, if any, be paid to the claimants/respondents within four weeks from the date of drawing up of the decree. The department is directed to supply xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for by either of the parties, within three days from the date of such application. This appeal is, thus, disposed of without any order as to costs. Bhattacharya, J. - I agree.;