M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 79, 80, 121 and 122 of 1987 titled as Mohinder Singh v/s. Union of India, Raghunath Singh and Ors. v/s. Union of India, Jagir Singhand Anr. v/s. Union of India and Puran Singh and Ors. v/s. Union of India respectively, as the common question of law and facts have been raised and both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment dated 26.11.1986 rendered by learned Single Judge. The learned Singh Judge has partly allowed the EFA No. 712 of 1986 and EFA No. 711 of 1986 filed by Mohinder Singh and Raghunath Singh and others.
(2.) On 10.6 -1965, an order was passed for acquisition of land belonging to Mohinder Singh measuring 386 Kanals 11 Maria situated in the area of village Daulatpur near Pathankot for defence purposes. This order was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide notice No. 1475/MLRG/Reader and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 25.6.1965. The land was acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for brevity '1952 Act'). The land of the other appellants namely Raghunath Singh and others was also acquired vide notification published under Sec. 7(1) of 1952 Act. The land in that case was situated in villages Mehmoon and Lamnie. The Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur (Shri Manmohan Singh Ahluwalia) was appointed as Arbitrator under Sec. 8(1)(b) of 1952 Act for the purpose of making the award and to determine the amount of compensation. He was also to determine the question of apportionment in relation to the said acquisition under 1952 Act. The Arbitrator pronounced his award on 25.7.1977 and awarded Rs. 2,000/ - per kanal for Nehari land, Rs. 1750/ - per kanal for Banjar Jadid land Rs. 1,000/ - per kanal for Barani land, Rs. 500/ - per kanal for Banjar Qadim land and Rs. 250/ - for gair mumkin land. Apart from the price of the land, interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount w.e.f. 25.6.1965 until realisation was also awarded alongwith solatium @ 15% on the enhanced amount. Dissatisfied with the compensation and other benefits awarded to the land owners, only one land -owner namely Hoshnak Singh came in appeal to the High Court in FAO No. 194 of 1977. The Union of India also filed numerous appeals against the award of the Arbitrator. The appeals filed by the Union of India and the cross objections filed by the claimants came up for hearing before this Court on 6.4.1983. The Court was pleased to enhance compensation in some of the appeals and in the judgment titled as Hoshnak Singh v/s. Union of India, 1983 P.L.J. 438. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: - "The landowner claimants were obviously under a handicap to produce any sale instance in support of their claim for compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per marla on account of the fact, as already indicated, that the suit land was under occupation of the military authorities right from the year 1947 -48, having been requisitioned for their purposes. As already pointed out, as a matter of fact, much more area than the suit land surrounding it was requisitioned by the military authorities and therefore no sale transactions could possibly take place in the vicinity of this area. The learned counsel for the claimants, however rely on a judgment of this Court in RFA No. 1971 (Hoshnak Singh v/s. State of Punjab and others) decided on February 27, 1980, dealing with the market value of the land acquired in pursuance of a notification published under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on July 6, 1982, whereby the rate of compensation was determined at Rs. 200/ - per marla or Rs. 32,000/ - per acre. The acquired area in that case was located on Pathankot Jullundur road but just outside the municipal limits of the town. In the light of this judgment, the learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that treating the finding recorded in this judgment as the base, the appellants in these cases are entitled to be awarded compensation at a much higher rate than Rs. 200/ - per marla on account of the interregnum of about three years between the two notifications of acquisition. The submission of the learned counsel apparently is not devoid of merit. As already pointed out, there is also no evidence on record on behalf of the respondent authorities which can possibly detract anything from this claim of the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, treating the rate determined vide judgment in RFA No. 193 (supra) as the base, I raise the compensation for the suit land in village Daulatpur by 25% i.e. to Rs. 250/ - per marla. Besides the above noted rate of compensation payable to the claimants -appellants and cross -objectors they are also held entitled to the payment of solatium and interest at the rate of 15% and 6% per annum respectively in terms of the judgment in Shankar Singh's case (supra) which indisputably is inter parties and has attained finality. All this, however, is subject to the claim made by them in their memorandum of appeals and cross -objections and the Court fee paid thereon. They too would have proportionate of their appeals and cross -objections. As a natural consequence of the above noted conclusion of mine the appeals filed by the Union of India fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs."
(3.) Thus it is obvious that the appellants did not file any first appeal or cross objections. The appeals/cross objections filed by Hoshnak Singh and others were considered in the above mentioned judgment and the benefit of enhanced compensation was given to them alone. Therefore, there is no order/decree enhancing the amount of compensation in the case of the appellants. It is further appropriate to mention that against the judgment in Hoshnak Singh's case (supra) no Letters Patent Appeal was filed nor any objections were filed either by the appellants or by Hoshnak Singh and others. The Union of India, however, challenged the judgment in Hoshnak Singh's case in LPA No. 1140 of 1983 which was dismissed in terms of the orders passed in LPA No. 1128 of 1983 decided on 16.12.1983.;