- (1.) THE following question has been referred to this Full Bench in the circumstances hereinafter detailed:- "whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, insofar as those provisions deny 15 per cent by way of solatium on the compensation awarded and also deny interest at the rate of 6 per cent, are violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. " Late Dewan Hari Krishan Khosla had one-third share in the Hindu undivided family property in village Male Majra, tahsil and district Patiala. The large tract of Land which was requisitioned by the order of the District Magistrate, Patiala, dated March 17, 1967 (Annexure 'a'), under Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, included 167 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land of Dewan Hari Krishan Khosla. 157 Bighas and 4 Biswas out of that land was later acquired by the Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Requisitioning end Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (30 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act) by publication of a notice to that effect in the Punjab Government Official Gazette, dated August 29, 1969 (Annexure 'b' ). The compensation payable to Hari Krishan Khosla for the acquired land was determined by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Competent Authority, Jullundur (Annexure 'c'), to be Rs. 1,62,109. 37 P. , and an offer of payment of the same was made to Hari Krishan Khosla. He was asked to communicate his acceptance or otherwise of the abovesaid offer. In his written reply, dated July 22, 1971 (Annexure 'd'), Hari Krishan Khosla requested that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector may be paid to him under protest. At the same time he objected to the inadequacy of the amount awarded to him, and applied to the Government for the appointment of an arbitrator and claimed interest at the rate of six per cent ,per annum. Annexure 'e' to the writ petition is a copy of his application for the appointment of an arbitrator containing objections against the award, dated April 24, 1971. The competent authority under the Act refused to pay even the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector on the plea that the claimant had submitted objections for enhancement of the compensation. Not having received any redress at the Government's hands, Hari Krishan Khosla filed this writ petition.
(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court (P. C. Jain, J.) before whom the petition came up for hearing framed the above quoted question and directed that a larger Bench should hear the case. A Division Bench of this Court (Sandhawalia and Jain, JJ.) before whom the petition was listed for hearing passed order, dated August 16, 1973, directing the case to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constituting a still larger Bench to hear it. In the meantime Dewan Hari Krishan Khosla died. Two of his sons, namely Avtar Krishan Khosla and Chand Krishan Khosla submitted an application to this Court praying for their names being substituted in place of the name of their father as petitioners in the case, on the ground that the share of Hari Krishan Khosla in the amount of compensation had devolved upon the present claimants according to the will of the deceased. That application was allowed toy our order, dated May 6, 1974, to the extent of directing the names of Avtar Krishan Khosla and Chand Krishan Khosla being substituted for the mime of their deceased father.
(3.) THE constitutionality of Section 8 (3) (a) of the Act has been questioned on the solitary ground that it violates the guarantee of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the acquisition of petitioner's land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) would have entitled them to obtain from the respondents at least 15 per cent more on the amount of compensation awarded to them (awarded to their father) on account of solatium and 6 per cent more on account of interest, but the said reliefs had been denied to the petitioners on the lone ground that they are not entitled to either the solatium or the interest under the Act. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel on this issue, it is necessary to notice some of the salient features of the Act. "competent authority" is defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act to mean any person or authority appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act for such area as may be specified in the notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 authorises the competent authority to requisition any property which might be needed for any puroose of the union. Section 7 (1) states that where any property is subject to requisition, the Central Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire the property for a public purpose to acquire the same by merely publishing in the Official Gazette a notice to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire the property. We are not concerned with the detail of the procedure which is given in the remaining part of Section 7 (1) for the purpose of answering the question which has been referred to us. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that when a notice under Sub-section (1) is published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned property vests automatically in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, and the requisitioning of the property shall thereupon come to an end. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 is in the following words:-- "no property shall be acquired under this section except in the following circumstances, namelv:- (a) where any works have, during the period of requisition, been constructed on, in or over, the property wholly or partially at the expense of the Central Gov- ernment and the Government decides that the value of, or the right to use, such works should be secured or preserved for the purposes of Government; or (b) where the cost of restoring the property to its condition at the time of its requisition would, in the determination of the Central Government, be excessive and the owner declines to accept release from requisition of the property without payment of compensation "for so restoring the property. " The principles and method of determination of compensation are laid down in Section 8 of the Act in the following terms:- " (l) Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say,- (a) where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement; (b) where no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court; (c) the Central Government may, in any particular case, nominate a person having expert knowledge as to the nature of the property requisitioned or acquired to assist the arbitrator and where such nomination is made, the person to be compensated may also nominate an assessor for the same purpose; (d) at the commencement of the proceedings before the arbitrator, the Central Government and the person to be compensated shall state what in their respective opinion is a fair amount of compensation; (e) the arbitrator shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid; and in making the award, he shall have regard to the circumstances of each case and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3), so far as they are applicable; (f) when there is any dispute as to the person or persons who are entitled to the compensation, the arbitrator shall decide such dispute and if the arbitrator finds that more persons than one are entitled to compensation, he shall apportion the amount thereof amongst such persons; (g) nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940) shall apply to arbitrations under this section. (2) The amount of compensation payable for the requisitioning of any property shall consist of (a) a recurring payment, in respect of the period of requisition, of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property, if it had been taken on lease for that period; and (b) such sum or sums, if any, as may be found necessary to compensate the person interested for all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (i) pecuniary loss due to requisitioning; (ii) expenses on account of vacating the requisitioned premises; (iii) expenses on account of reoccupying the premises upon release from requisition; and (iv) damage (other than normal wear and tear) caused to the property during the period of requisition, including the expenses that may have to be incurred for restoring the property to the condition in which it was at the time of requisition. 3. The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under Section 7 shall be (a) the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition, or (b) twice the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market if it had been sold on the date of requisition, whichever is less. ";