DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the award dated April 15, 1971 passed by the Arbitrator appointed under sec. 9(1) (b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'). Shri Updesh Naram Mathur by his award dated April, 15, 1971 awarded compensation to Rao Narayan Singh of Masuda for the acquisition of his properties. Appeal No. 54 of 1971 has been filed by Rao J
(2.) ARAYAN Singh of Masuda while appeal No. 56 of 1971 has been filed by the Union of India against the aforesaid award. The property commonly known as 'Masuda House',situated at Ajmer, inclusive of buildings and lands appurtenant thereto measuring about 70 bighas and 14 biswas belonging to Rao Narayan Singh were requisitioned by the Union of India in the year 1963, for the purposes of Central Reserve Police Force stationed at Ajmer (hereinafter referrd to as "C.R.P.") under Sec. 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Act of 1962'). The Deputy Inspector General of C.R.P. Ajmer took possession of the building and lands on April 24, 1963. Subsequently, the building and the lands were acquired under Sec. 36 of the Act of 1962 for the purposes of C.R.P, Ajmer by the order of the Collector, Ajmer dated April 20, 1967. A notice under Sec. 36(2) of the Act of 1962 was served upon Rao Narayan Singh on May 5, 1967 and as such the earlier order of requisition of the said property came to an end on May 5, 1967 and the property stood acquired from the aforesaid date and became vested in the Central Government under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 36 of the Act of 1962. In the meantime the Act of 1962 ceased to remain in force from July 10, 1968. The Collector, Ajmer offered a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,32, 594/-oh September 9, 1968 under Sec 8(1) of the Act of 1952 to the owner Rao Narayan Singh of Masuda on behalf of the Central Government, as compensation for the acquisition of his property, but the said offer was rejected by Rao Narayan Singh on September 20, 1968 on the ground that it was grossly inadequate and arbitrary. As such proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator were taken under Sec. 8(l)(b) of the Act of 1952. Shri Updesh Narayan Mathur, who was then working as Joint Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Rajasthan, was appointed as the arbitrator under Sec. 8(1 )(b) by the State Government on August 23, 1969 for the determination of compensation in respect of the acquired property. The arbitrator issued notice to the parties and Rao Narayan Singh filed a statement of his claim on January 31, 1970, claiming compensation for land @ Rs. 10/-per Sq. yard and the value of the building known as Masuda House as Rs 2,50,000/-. He also claimed solatium for the compulsory acquisition besides compensation. The arbitrator by his award dated April 15, 1971 determined the following amount as compensation payable to the owner, Rao Narayan Singh: (a) Building Masuda House, its out houses, parks, trees, water tanks, electric and Sanitary Fittings etc., and appurtenant structures. Rs. 2,50,000/- (b) 74 Bighas and 14 Biswas of adjacent land at Rs. 7.50 per Sq. yd. (c) Loss of access of and utility of about 3 Bighas and 2 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 3844. Rs. 2,000/- (d) Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award to the date of final payment, on the total amount. (e) Solatium @ 15% over and above the market price of Rs. 7.50 per Sq.yd. for the lands only. It was also declared by the Arbitrator that Rao Narayan Singh was the owner and proprietor of the property and the entire amount of compensation in respect of the acquired property was to be paid him by the Central Government. As mentioned earlier, both the parties have filed appeals in this Court, being dis-satisfied with the award given by the Arbitrator. Rao Narayan Singh contends in his appeal that the amount of compensation should be increased while the Union of India in its appeal has taken the stand that the amount awarded by the arbitrator as compensation was highly excessive and must be reduced. When both these appeals came up for hearing before this court on an earlier occasion, it was held by the order dated August 9, 1974 that the appoint-ment of the arbitrator under Sec. 8(l)(b) of the Act of 1952 was illegal and as such the entire award was set aside, as a whole. Rao Narayan Singh went in appeal against the aforesaid order of this court dated August 9, 1974 in the Supreme Court and his appeal was accepted by the order dated April 14, 1976. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in view of proviso (b) of Sec. 25(1) of the Act of 1952 and in view of the provisions of Article 258 of the Constitution, the State Government could appoint an arbitrator as a delegate of the Central Government. It was also held by their Lordships that there was no material distinction between the provisions of the Act of 1952 and the Act of 1962 in regard to the appointment of an arbitrator. The operative part of the order of their Lordships of the Supreme Court dated April 14, 1976 is as under: "the matter will now go to back the High Court for decision of the other questions, including the question whether the principles set out in the Act of 1952 would apply or whether those set out in the Act of 1962 would apply for the fixation and award of compensation. This order will govern the companion appeal also." Rao Narayan Singh applied to the Supreme Court for clarification of the order of remand passed on April 14, 1976, as according to him, the appeal filed in this Court by the Union of India should not be heard on merits, as the Union of India did not file any appeal before the Supreme Court against the order passed by this Court on August 9, 1974. The application of Rao Narayan Singh in this respect was rejected by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by the order dated September 19, 1979 with the following observations : "No clarification is, in fact, necessary but in order to dispel any doubt we direct that the High Court shall hear both the first appeals namely first appeal No. 54 and 56 of 1971 and dispose them of on merits."
(3.) IN accordance with the directions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we have heard both the appeals on merits. In the appeal preferred by Rao Narayan Singh, (hereinafter referred to as "the owner") learned counsel for the owner argued that the compensation should have been paid to the owner for acquisition of land @ Rs. 10/- per Sq. yard and not @Rs. 7.50/- per Sq. yard, as was awarded by the arbitrator. He also argued that the owner was entitled to interest @6% per annum from the date of acquisition upto the date of payment instead of from the date of the award and that the arbitrator erred in not granting interest from May 5,1967,when the Union Government should be considered to have taken over possession of the property in question, by way of acquisition. It was also argued by the learned counsel that although the arbitrator had awarded solatium to the owner @ 15% on the value of the land but he erred in not allowing solatium at the same rate on the value of the building on account of compulsory nature of the transaction. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the owner also argued that the appeal preferred by the Union of India was not maintainable under Sec. 11 of the Act of 1952. In the appeal preferred by Union of India, learned counsel argued that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded by the arbitrator to the owner as the value of the building was highly excessive. He also argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the arbitrator as the value of the land is also excessive, as the same should have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 2 62 per Sq. yard and not @ Rs. 7.50 per sq. yard. Learned counsel also argued that no amount is awardable to the owner either by way of interest or solatium, as there is no provision either for interest or solatium in the Act of 1952. ;