SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are the poor villagers. THEy are fighting their legal battle against mighty Union of India for getting the amount awarded to them by the arbitrator including compensation, solatium and interest for the lands which have been acquired by the Union of India under the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, for short the Act. THE lands of the peti- tioners are situated in the State of Rajasthan. Initially their lands were hired on rent in 1972 by the Union of India for the defence purposes and they continued to pay rent for the said lands to the lands owner petitioners upto 1987. In 1987 the said lands were acquired under the notification. Since then they have stopped to pay rent for the said lands. It appears from the judgment of this Court at Annex. I dated July 17, 1992, delivered in several petitions on September 28, 1989 a meeting of the representative of Union of India, Collector, Addl. Collector, SDO, and Tehsildar of Jodhpur and the khatedars was held and the resolution was passed for payment of compensation at Rs. 7000/- per bigha to the khatedars. THEse lands were acquired without any solatium and interest. Not only that the interim payment was made at Rs. 1000/- per bigha to the khatedars. However, one khatedars filed writ petition No. 4814/90 before this Court which was allowed by B. R. Arora, J. by his order dated May 16, 1991 directing payment of compensation at Rs. 7000/- and also to determine the compensation of trees, building and well within two months. From the award dated 23. 11. 1982 (Annex. 2) of the arbitrator it also appears that subsequently i. e. on 18. 12. 1991 the Collector reduced the amount to Rs. 3850/- per bigha unilaterally without assigning any cogent persons in a arbitrary manner. On July 17, 1992 this Court (Milap Chandra Jain, J. , as he then was) while allowing the group petitions directed the respondent hold to appoint arbitrator under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act within three months from the date of the order and also directed the respondents to make payment of 80% of the amount mentioned in the notice to the petitioners within three months from the date of the order and also adjust the amount already paid to them at Rs. 1000/- per bigha and the total amount will be adjusted in the final amount of compensation payable to them. Pursuant to that order the Secretary to the Union of India ordered on 23. 11. 1992 appointed Shri O. P. Bishnoi. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur as arbitrator under Section 8 (1) (b) (v) of the Act.
(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are as under : "the agricultural land in question is situated in villages Jajiwal, Khichiya, Kankarala, Bhandariya, Kaludi and Kala. In all, about 981 acres of land was taken on rent for defence purposes and it is not in dispute that the rent upto 31. 3. 1987 has been paid to the land owners. Subsequently, it was decided to acquire the said land which was acquired under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act and the competent authority (District Collector, Jodhpur) vide his order dated 18. 12. 1981 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3850/- per bigha. . . . . . the land owners have filed their claims and according to them, the land in question is very fertile and capable of producing double crops. A part from that, the land being in the vicinity of the city of Jodhpur and being well connected by rail and road, it has been contended that at present the prices of the land are ranging between 40 to 50 thousand per bigha and in April, 1987 the prices were not less than Rs. 20,000/- per bigha. In reply, the Assistant Defence Estate Officer has submitted that the compensation awarded by the competent authority at the rate of Rs. 3850/- per bigha was very reasonable. It is further submitted that the land owners in their writ petitions themselves submitted that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per bigha be awarded and in view of that, they are estopped from asking for higher price. It is also contended that no solatium or interest can be allowed under the law. " Following issues were framed by the learned arbitrator on the contentions raised by both the sides before him : Vk;k] fooknxzlr Hkwfe ekstk tkthoky dyka] ddjkyk f[kfo;k eamkfj;k] dwrm+h jdck 181&04 ,dm+ dks Vkokir dh tk jgh gs mldk cktk# ewy; chl gtkj #i;s izfr ch?kk ls Hkwfe/kkjh izkir djus ds gdnkj gs\ 2- Vk;k] [kkrsnkj fooknxzlr Hkwfe dks Hkwfe vf/kfu;e 1894 la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e ds varxzr 30 izfr'kr vuqrks"k ,oa 15 izfr'kr buvjslv dh jkf'k Hkqxrku gksus dh rkjh[k rd izkir djus ds vf/kdkjh gs\ 3- Vk;k] [kkrsnkjku viuh Hkwfe ij [kms] o`{k /kksjk okyk] [kk|] csad ,oa edku ds eqVkots dh jkf'k izkir djus ds vf/kdkjh gs] o ;fn gkwa rks fdruh\ 4- Vk;k] [kkrsnkjku us viuh ;kfpdk esa mpp U;k;ky; esa flqz lkr gtkj izfr ch/kk dh ekax dh gs blfy, blls vf/kd eqVkotk ugha fnyk;k tk ldrk gsa 5- vuqrks"k\**
(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, the learned arbitrator passed the following award on 6. 6. 94 : " 1. Compensation shall be paid @ Rs. 7000/- per bigha, less the amount already paid, to the concerned land owners. 2. Solatium shall be pad @ 10%. 3 Interest @ 4% shall be paid, w. e. f. 12. 11. 1987 till the payments are made, on the amount due. " The petitioners have prayed in this writ petition to direct the respondents to pay compensation with interest and all benefits and also pay compensation to the petitioners at the present market price. In alternative it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents be directed to comply with the award at Annex. 2 passed by the arbitrator forthwith. Infact, earlier prayer made by the petitioners in the petition has been seriously pressed and the learned coun- sel for the petitioners have only argued that the respondents be directed to comply with the award passed by the learned arbitrator forthwith in its true spirit. As against that, learned counsel Shri P. P. Chaudhary, appearing for the Union of India vehemently submitted that this Court should not entertain this petition as according to him this writ petition filed by the petitioners is not at all maintainable. He submi- tted that instead of filing this writ petition the petitioners ought to have filed a civil suit before the competent authority and obtain decree and get the award passed by the arbitrator executed against the respondents. He also submitted that respondents are not bound to pay solatium and interest awarded by the arbitrator. He also submitted that the Union of India has challenged the award of the arbitrator in favour of the petitioners before this Court by way of regular appeal under the Act and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award in this writ petition. At this stage it must be stated that the objections were filed by the Union of India before the arbitrator on 6. 6. 94 against the award, but the same were dismissed on 28. 3. 95 on the ground of jurisdiction as stated at the Bar by the learned counsel Shri Chaudhary. It is only thereafter the Union of India has filed appeal under Section 11 of the Act after the period of limitation. The period of limitation is 30 days. It is also to be stated that the special appeal is under defects as it is filed beyond the period of limitation and the application for condonation of delay has not yet come up before the Court. It may also be stated that on the last occasion i. e. 12. 7. 96 when this matter was called out for hearing learned counsel Shri Chaudhary stated that Union of India has already challenged the award dated 6. 6. 94 passed by the arbitra- tor before this Court by way of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 38/96, but no stay has been obtained so far in that appeal and the matter has not come up for admission. Therefore, it was made clear that if the special appeal is not heard and no stay is obtained by 18. 7. 1996 then this petition will be heard and finally disposed of on merits on 23. 7. 96 i. e. today. Today, it is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel Shri Chaudhary that delay application itself has not come up for orders before the Court and, therefore, he was unable to obtain any stay in the appeal and get the appeal heard. ;