- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of solatium and interest by correction of Award dated 11.2.2011 stands dismissed.
(2.) The land of the petitioners became the subject matter of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Land Acquisition Collector announced its Award on 8.5.2007. Aggrieved against the amount of compensation awarded, the other land owners have sought References which was referred to Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as an Arbitrator to decide the question of amount of compensation. Learned Arbitrator announced its Award on 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-1), determining the amount of compensation by enhancing the amount in respect of the otherland owners. The Reference of the petitioners was decided vide the Award dated 11.2.2011 on the basis of the order dated 28.1.2009. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for correction of the Award so as to grant solatium and interest which was declined on 7.7.2011 by observing "No action is required". The said order was challenged by the petitioners by way of a Civil Writ Petition No. 17022 of 2011, Bhag Singh and another vs. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was decided on 19.9.2011, directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the claim of the petitioners. Again the claim of the petitioners has been declined vide the order dated 5.3.2012 which is now the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings vs. Union of India and ors, 2011 4 RCR(Civ) 375, wherein, it has been held that in the matter of determining compensation, the land owners cannot be deprived of solatium and interest as provided under Section 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The relevant extract from the judgment is: 61. Thus, the essential principles that emerge from a reading of the aforementioned precedents, are :- (a) the public purpose shall not determine the amount of compensation; (b) it is immaterial whether land is acquired under one statute or another; (c) different compensation cannot be granted to different land owners based upon a different public purpose; (d) where, however, a statute denies solatium and interest to a landowner, the said statutory provision must satisfy the tests of a reasonable classification based upon an intelligible differentia and must disclose a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 62. The question that would now merit consideration is whether the public purpose underlying the National Highways Act discloses a valid classification based upon an intelligible differentia as would enable us to hold that the provisions of the Act, do not suffer from the vice of discrimination in matters of payment of compensation vis-a-vis lands, acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. xxx xxx xxx 82. The expeditious constructions of Highways, the expeditious conclusion of acquisition proceedings, the reference of disputes regarding compensation to an arbitrator, the statutory power to associate private entrepreneurs and the legal ability to access private capital, in our considered opinion has no relevance to the assessment/payment of compensation. The expeditious acquisition of land can be validly achieved by resorting to the urgency provisions contained in Section 17A of the Land Acquisition Act. The impugned enactment merely replaces the procedure for acquisition, envisaged by the Land Acquisition Act with a new procedure, stated to be expeditious, more efficient and in tune with the need for an expeditious construction of national highways, but does not disclose a distinct or peculiar public purpose as would justify the denial of solatium and other statutory benefits relating to compensation. xxx xxx xxx 85. Solatium is not a largesse or a mere subsidy that the State doles out to a hapless landowner in discharge of some benevolent exercise of governmental power. Solatium is an amount, paid by the State to an unwilling land owner, for compulsory appropriation of his property. The word solatium draws its meaning from the word "solace" that is comfort money given as a statutorily recognized gesture of conciliation for compulsorily depriving a land owner of his property. The importance of "solatium" cannot be over emphasized and any departure therefrom would, in our considered opinion, be justified only where the enactment discloses a reasonable classification for treating land owners differently. Solatium forms an integral component of compensation and, therefore, can only be denied where the statute satisfies the tests of valid classification. 86. Difference in procedure would not govern rights of parties to compensation. The difference, as repeatedly emphasized herein before, must be such as would disclose a valid classification based upon an intelligible differentia and not mere differences of procedure. The public purpose must be such as cannot be achieved by resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and disclose such a distinct or peculiar object as could not be achieved under the Land Acquisition Act. We have carefully perused the Act, in our endeavour to understand the so called differentia sought to be pressed into service by counsel for the respondents and have made a concerted effort to understand their submissions but express our inability to determine any justification whether legal, factual or theoretical that would have us hold that the public purpose, underlying the amending Act constitutes a separate class and is so different from the public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act that denial of solatium and interest could be held to be based upon a valid classification and consequently a valid exercise of legislative power. We find no basis whether in the objects and reasons, in the written reply, the written submissions, as also from the assistance rendered to hold anything other than that as the provisions of the Act do not provide for grant of solatium and interest, they suffer from the vice of discrimination and violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and would, therefore, be held to be ultra vires. ;