Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHER SINGH AND ANR.

Decided
15 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 336 · 1996 INSC 527

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 336, margin E

This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated April 5, 1990 of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in LPA No. 444/90. The Land of the respondents, along with others, admeasuring 50.55 acres situated in village Behar Tehsil, Pathankot was requisitioned and subsequently acquired for defence purposes under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1952 (for short, the 'Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation at Rs. 201 per canal. When an application was made by the respondents under Section 8 of the Ac~ the arbitrator in his award dated December 6, 1986 determined the compensation at Rs. 1,000 per canal. He also awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and @ 15% thereafter till date of deposit. When challenged, the appeal came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Divisions Bench. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 336–337, margin F

The only question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents are entitled to the payment of solatium and interest awarded by the arbitrator? The Court in Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla, [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 149 held that the claimants are not entitled to the solatium and interest since the Act does not provide for the payment thereof. On the last occasion when the matter had come up for hearing, this Court passed an order on March 25, 1996 directing the appellants to produce the record of K-Form. A letter dated December 19, 1995 has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants stating that the respondents have not received the amount under protest nor have they made any application for appointment of arbitrator within the stipulated period. We need not go into the question as regards the appointment of the arbitrator for determination of the compensation against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer since that order has become final. The only question is: whether the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest?

p. 337, margin A

Learned counsel for the respondents sought to contend that the Act provides for determination of just compensation. All the three components form part of the determination of just compensation and that, therefore, the award passed by the arbitrator does not warrant interference. We find no force in the contention. Determination of just compensation is with reference to the value of the land acc1uired under the Act. Since the payment of solatium and interest is in addition to the compensation determined under the Act, this Court in Hari Kishan Khosla's case (supra) and held that the arbitrator is devoid of jurisdiction to award solatium and interest. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in upholding payment of solatium and interest.

p. 337, margin D

The appeal is allowed to the extent of awarding of solatium and interest and with respect lo determination of compensation @ Rs. 1,000 per canal the order of the High Court stands upheld. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 337, margin G