FAO-1527 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Union of India Sadhu Singh, Sant Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, decision dated Additional respondent/landowners granted along with award on the amount of date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of compensation in Court. 2. Village Mehna, landowners was requisitioned vide notification dated under the Defence of India Act, 1971, for short ‘the 1971 Act, award was announced by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. 1527-1992 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1527-1992 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Date of pronouncement Union of India VERSUS Sadhu Singh, Sant Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent(s). **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 16/26.11.1991 pas dditional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the claim made by the respondent/landowners for enhancement granted along with award of solatium @ on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of compensation in Court. Briefly stated, 13 kanal 17 marlas of land situated in Village Mehna, District Bathinda, owned by the respondents/ landowners was requisitioned vide notification dated under the Defence of India Act, 1971, for short ‘the 1971 Act, award was announced by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1992 (O&M) Reserved on: 09.07.2025 pronouncement: 15.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent(s). y way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the ssed by the Arbitrator-cum whereby the claim made by the enhancement of compensation was of solatium @ 30% and also with interest compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of compensation in Court. Briefly stated, 13 kanal 17 marlas of land situated in District Bathinda, owned by the respondents/ landowners was requisitioned vide notification dated 7/12.11.1984 under the Defence of India Act, 1971, for short ‘the 1971 Act, and award was announced by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. y way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the cum- whereby the claim made by the of compensation was with interest compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ Briefly stated, 13 kanal 17 marlas of land situated in District Bathinda, owned by the respondents/ 7/12.11.1984 and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1527 3. issue and thus the matter was referred to the Arbitrator Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Vide impugned award dated 16/26.11.1991, the market value of the along with the preceding paragraph. 4. 1992, titled as came to be decided on 29 by the respondent/landowner as well as appellant Union of India before the Hon’ble Apex Court and both the said appeal decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.03.1995 and for convenience, the same is extracted hereunder: 1527-1992 (O&M) [2] Being aggrieved, the respondent/ landowners agitated the issue and thus the matter was referred to the Arbitrator Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Vide impugned award dated 16/26.11.1991, the market value of the along with grant of 30% solatium and also the interest as detailed in the preceding paragraph. Further aggrieved, the landowner 1992, titled as Sadhu Singh and ors. came to be decided on 29.10.1992. by the respondent/landowner as well as appellant Union of India before the Hon’ble Apex Court and both the said appeal decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.03.1995 and for convenience, the same is extracted hereunder: “All the appeals of the Union of India as well as of the claimants are disposed of by a common order. In view of the judgment of this Court in of India Vs. Hari Kishan Khosla SCC 149, the appeals of the Union of India are allowed. The awards and decrees of the High Court to the extent of granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest and the award of the Arbitrator granting solatium and interest, are set aside. The claimants are entitled to the payment of principal amount of compensati Court and the Arbitrator. The Union of India is directed to make the payment within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs.” ieved, the respondent/ landowners agitated the issue and thus the matter was referred to the Arbitrator-cum Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Vide impugned award dated 16/26.11.1991, the market value of the acquired land was enhanced 30% solatium and also the interest as detailed in the landowners filed FAO No.1009 and ors. Vs. Union of India, which The said decision was assailed by the respondent/landowner as well as appellant Union of India before the Hon’ble Apex Court and both the said appeals were decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.03.1995 and for convenience, the same is extracted hereunder:- the appeals of the Union of India as well as of the claimants are disposed of by a common order. In view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs. Hari Kishan Khosla, (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149, the appeals of the Union of India are ds and decrees of the High Court to the extent of granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest and the award of the Arbitrator granting solatium and interest, are set aside. The claimants are entitled to the payment of principal amount of compensation determined by the High Court and the Arbitrator. The Union of India is directed to make the payment within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs.” ieved, the respondent/ landowners agitated the cum- Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Vide impugned award dated enhanced 30% solatium and also the interest as detailed in FAO No.1009- which assailed by the respondent/landowner as well as appellant Union of India were decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.03.1995 and the appeals of the Union of India as well as Union , (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149, the appeals of the Union of India are ds and decrees of the High Court to the extent of granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest and the award of the Arbitrator granting solatium and interest, are set aside. The claimants are entitled to the payment of principal on determined by the High Court and the Arbitrator. The Union of India is directed to make the payment within six months from SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1527 appellant Union of Indi passed by Learned Arbitrator remained pending consideration. 5. no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respo sincere efforts made by the Registry of this Court to inform them. 6. Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors. 14 SCC 357 @ 9% per annum for the first year till the date of payment of compensation in favour of landowner respondents/ landowners as well as Union of India were disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 02.03.1995 refusing to award solatium and interest also disposed of in 7. stand disposed of 15.07.2025 sanjay 1527-1992 (O&M) [3] Somehow, the present appeal filed at the instance of appellant Union of India against the decision dated 16/26.11.1991 passed by Learned Arbitrator-cum-Additional District Judge, Bathinda remained pending consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, however, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respo sincere efforts made by the Registry of this Court to inform them. Although, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors. 14 SCC 357 had upheld the grant of 30% solatium along with interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of compensation in favour of landowners, yet the appeals filed at the instance of spondents/ landowners as well as Union of India were disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 02.03.1995 refusing to award solatium and interest also disposed of in terms of Sadhu Singh’s Pending miscellaneous application(s), if an stand disposed of. .2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether reportable ? the present appeal filed at the instance of a against the decision dated 16/26.11.1991 Additional District Judge, Bathinda I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, however, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents despite all sincere efforts made by the Registry of this Court to inform them. Although, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors., reported as (2010) had upheld the grant of 30% solatium along with interest and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment of compensation in favour of similarly placed , yet the appeals filed at the instance of present spondents/ landowners as well as Union of India were disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 02.03.1995 thereby refusing to award solatium and interest. Thus, the present appeal is Sadhu Singh’s case (supra). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No the present appeal filed at the instance of a against the decision dated 16/26.11.1991 Additional District Judge, Bathinda I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, however, ndents despite all Dilawar (2010) had upheld the grant of 30% solatium along with interest and thereafter @ 15% per annum similarly placed present spondents/ landowners as well as Union of India were disposed of thereby , the present appeal is y, shall also SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.15 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document