(2025: JHHC:38725) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 43 of 2018 Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Defence Estate Officer, JOB Circle (Jharkhand & Bihar Circle), Danapur Cantonment, P.O. and P.S., Danapur, District Patna duly represented through SDO-I, Defence Estates Office, JOB Circle (Jharkhand & Bihar Circle), Danapur Cantonment, P.O. and P.S. Danapur, District Patna … … Objector/Appellant Versus 1.Mangal Dan Oraon, son of late Kandra Oraon (substituted v.o.d. 23.06.2022 1(a) Samuel Toppo 1(b) Vijay Toppo, both sons of late Mangal Dan Oraon 2. Chander Mahato, son of late Jagarnath Mahato 3. Tejua Baraik, son of late Tahlu Baraik (substituted vide order Dated 23.06.2022) 3(a) Narain Baraik, 3(b) Binand Baraik, both sons of late Tejua @ Teju Baraik 4. Buda Mundain, wife of late Charku Munda and daughter of Late Budhram Munda (deleted v.o.d. 08.09.2025) 4(a) Shanicharwa Munda, aged about 45 years, S/o late Buda Mundain @ Buda Devi & late Charku Munda 5. Parwati Mundain, wife of Late Divya Munda and Daughter of Late Budhram Munda (deleted v.o.d. 08.09.2025) 5(a) Sanjay Munda aged about 29 years, S/o late Devia Kachhap @ Divya Munda & late Parwati Mundain @ Parvati Mundain 6. Khedu Baraik, son of late Mangla Baraik 7. Dashrath Baraik, son of late Megh Nath Baraik 8. Baldo Baraik, son of late Bechu Baraik 9. Premchand Oraon @ Madi Oraon, son of late Mahgadeo Oraon (substituted v.o.d. 23.06.2022) 9(a) Lukri Oraon wife of late Premchand Oraon@ Madi Oraon@ Lakra 9(b) Pradip Lakra 9(c) Sandeep Lakra 9(d) Subhasis Lakra All sons of late Premchand Oraon@ Madi Oraon@ Lakra 10. Kunjal Oraon, son of late Mahadeo Oraon 11. Soma Oraon, son of late Bithu Oraon 12. Bhima Oraon, son of late Bithu Oraon 13. Domana Oraon son of late Chaitu Oraon (substituted v.o.d. 23.06.2022) 13(a) Mangal Oraon 13(b) Jatru Oraon 13(c) Chaitu Oraon 13(d) Ajit Tigga 13(e) Bhola Tigga All sons of late Domana Oraon 14. Chaitu Oraon only son of Tannu Oraon (2025: JHHC:38725) 2 15. Marshal Oraon son of Late Bhagat Oraon @ Benjamin Ekka 16. Jaura Oraon son of late Pahana Oraon (substituted v.o.d. 23.06.2022) 16(a) Panna Lakra 16(b) Pana Lakra 16(c) Ramu Lakra 16(d) Bandhan Lakra All sons of late Jaura Oraon @ Lakra 17. Ranka Oraon son of late Pahana Oraon (deleted v.o.d. 08.09.2025) 17(a) Bijay Lakra, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Ranka Oraon 18. Biru Oraon son of late Pahana Oraon 19. Bandhana Oraon son of late Pahana Oraon 20. Mohan Oraon son of late Pahana Oraon 21. Narayan Oraon son of late Pahana Oraon 22. Jahanara Oraon only son of Modi Oraon (deleted v.o.d. 08.09.2025) 22(a) Jaya Kumari Tirkey (widow) aged about 50 years, w/o late Jahanara Oraon @ Jhanara Oraon 22(b) Johnson Lakra, aged about 18 years S/o late Jahanara Oraon @ Jhanara Oraon 23. Etwa Oraon, son of late Budhu Oraon 24. Hari Singh Oraon, son of late Hirga Oraon 25. Most. Bhukoli Oraon, wife of late Chunda Oraon 26. Pahana Oraon, son of late Chaitu Oraon 27. Lakhia Oraon, wife of late Madi Oraon 28. Lado Oraon, son of Chhotka Chamar Oraon 29. Ganga Oraon, son of Soma Oraon 30. Most. Asha Devi 31. Adidtya Kumar Sahu 32. Shiva Oraon son of late Sanicharwa Oraon (deleted v.o.d. 08/09/2025) 32 (a) Niral Ekka, aged about 37 years, son of Shiva Oraon@ Junul Ekka@ Shiba Oraon 32.(b) Kuldeep Ekka, aged about 36 years, son of Shiva Oraon@ Junul Ekka@ Shiba Oraon 33. Gosai Oraon @ Ekka son of late Sanicharwa Oraon 34. Gandura Oraon son of late Suka Oraon (substituted v.o.d. 23.06.2022) 34.(a) Rowen Ekka 34.(b) Michel Ekka 34(c) Prakash Ekka All sons of late Gandura Oraon 35.Luice Oraon of late Suka Oraon 36. Most. Sahari Orain, Wife of Etwa Oraon 37. Lalo Oraon, wife of late Nirmal Oraon 38. Mahali Oraon son of late Birsa Oraon (substituted v.o.d. 08/09/2025) 38.(a) Lalo Lakra, aged about 37 years, wife of late Mahali Oraon@ Mahli Lakra@ Mahli Oraon 38.(b) Avinash Lakra, aged about 16 years, represented through his (2025: JHHC:38725) 3 mother/natural guardian Lalo Lakra 39. Mahadeo Lohar, son of late Pahana Lohar 40. Tarun Nayak son of late Dinanath Nayak 41. Arun Nayak, son of late Dinanath Nayak 42. Dhadhu Naik, son of late Somara Ghashi 43. Birsa Ghasi, son of late Rogna Ghashi 44. Padum Devi, wife of late Tejua Ghashi 45.Mangal Ghashi, son of late Chumna Ghashi (substituted v.o.d. 08/09/2025) 45.(a) Prakash Nayak, aged about 48 years, 45.(b) Dhaneshwar Nayak, aged about 40 years Both sons of Mangal Ghasi@ Mangal Nayak 46. Namaskar Nayak, son of late Kalicharan Nayak 47. Prakash Nayak, minor duly represented his elder brother namely Namaskar Nayak(respondent no. 46 herein) 48.Bishwa Oraon son of Late Sadho Oraon 49.Bhubneshwar Gope son of late Suraj Mahato @ Ahir (substituted v.o.d. 08/09/2025) 49(a) Lalita Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of late Bhubneshwar Gope @ Bhuneshwar Gope 49(b) Pramod Gope, aged about 35 years son of Bhubneshwar Gope @ Bhuneshwar Gope 50. Suresh Gope, son of late Suraj Mahato @ Ahir 51. Faleshwar Gope son of late Suraj Mahato @ Ahir 52. Mahabir Gope son of late Suraj Mahato @ Ahir (substituted vide order dated 23.06.2022) 52(a) Narendra Gope 52(b) Sanjay Kumar Gope 52(c) Sandeep Gope 52(d) Sudeep Kumar All sons of late Mahabir Gope 53. Bartu Oraon, son of late Mahli Oraon All residents of Village Tumbagutu, P.S.+P.O. Namkom, Namkom, District Ranchi … … Claimants/Respondents 54. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Kutchery Road, Ranchi 55. District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi, P.O., GPO, P.S. Kotwali, Kutchery Road, Ranchi … Objectors/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI For the Respondents : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, Advocate : Ms. Manjushri Patra, Advocate : Mrs. Shrestha Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Vidhan Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate --- 43/22.12.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. (2025: JHHC:38725) 4 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 05.04.2012 passed in Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2010 by the sole Arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 8(1) (e) of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as aforesaid Act of 1952). 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the date of requisition under the Act of 1952 by the defence of India is of the year 1942 and the date of acquisition of the property under the provisions of aforesaid Act of 1952 is 13.01.1987. He has submitted that although there is no provision for award of solatium and interest under the Act of 1952, but considering the delay on the part of Union of India in the matter of appointment of Arbitrator, who was appointed only after the claimants moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction, the learned Arbitrator has awarded solatium and interest. Solatium has been awarded to the extent of 20% and compensation has been enhanced to Rs. two lacs and further interest has been awarded @ 9% till the date of the Award and post Award interest has been awarded @ 12%. 4. The learned counsel submits that arising out of year of requisition and followed by said year of acquisition there has been a number of litigations before this court and different arbitrators were appointed by virtue of orders passed in different writ petitions. He has submitted that in all of them similar awards have been passed and the year of requisition and also the year of acquisition are the same. He has submitted that the awards were challenged before this court by the Union of India. The challenge was declined and ultimately those awards have attained finality. The learned counsel submits that there can be no reason to take a different view in the present case. The learned counsel has given the details of the other awards as under: - Notification Dated: 13/01/1987 Village : Tumbaguttu Seneth Munda & Ors. Vs. Union of India CWJC No. 2698 of 1998 filed by claimant for appointment of arbitrator allowed on 26.07.1999 (2025: JHHC:38725) 5 Union of India filed LPA No. 283 of 1999 (R) which was Dismissed on 24.11.1999 Claimant petitioner filed another CWJC No. 76/2001 for appointment of arbitrator since the arbitrator appointed in view of order passed in CWJC No. 2696 of 1998 declined for arbitration. The writ petition was allowed on 11.9.2001 Arbitrator appointed vide Memo no. 3011 dated 09.11.2001 Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2002 started Award passed on 21.06.2003 F.A. No. 107 of 2003 filed by Union of India disposed of on 27.04.2007 confirming the Award Union of India preferred S.L.A. (Civil) No. 3113 of 2008 against the order dated 27.04.2007 which is dismissed on 03.03.2008. Contempt Case (Civil) No. 815 of 2007 filed by the claimants in which order passed on 02.04.2009 by the High Court. Union of India preferred SLP (Civil) No. 12328 of 2009 against the order dated 02.04.2009 on the point that as to whether the claimant is entitle to interest on interest which has been allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in favour of Union of India and it was held that the claimant is not entitle for interest on interest vide order dated 10.03.2010 as reported in (2010) 3 SCC 673. Notification Dated: 13/01/1987 Village Tumbaguttu Sukher Oraon and Others versus Union of India CWJC No. 1723/1992 (R) filed by Claimant for appointment of Arbitrator was allowed vide order dated 17.04.1995 and the Arbitrator appointed Vide memo no. 799 dated 05.12.1995 Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1995-96 Sukher Oraon & 16 others vs. Union of India- Award was passed on 27th May (2025: JHHC:38725) 6 1998 First Appeal No. 83 of 1999 filed by claimants for enhancement against the award dated 27th May 1998. First Appeal No. 275 of 1999 (R) filed by Union of India against award dated 27th May 1998. Both the appeals were dismissed on 13th September 2001 by the High Court. L.P.A. No. 249 of 2002 filed by Union of India was dismissed on 09.05.2002 S.L.P. (Civil) No. CC 1764 of 2002 filed by Union of India against the order dated 09.05.2002 passed in L.P.A. No. 249 of 2002, Converted into Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2003 was dismissed vide Judgment Dated 20.01.2011 with a cost of Rs. 2,00.000/- Notification Dated 13.01.1987 Village Tumbaguttu Chunda Oraon & Others Vs. Union of India Later on, substituted by Sanicharwa Lakra and Others CWJC No. 1543 of 1992 (R) Claimant filed a writ for appointment of Arbitrator which was allowed on 22.07.1992 and proceeded in Arbitration Case No. 7 of 1993 in the matter of Chunda Oraon and Others. Arbitrator gave his Award on 08.01.1994 against which claimant filed a M.A. No. 38 of 1994 (R) for enhancement of awarded amount whereas the Deputy Commissioner filed M.A. 132 of 1994 (R). Both the cases were dismissed on 09.03.1998. Union of India filed LPA No. 330 of 1998 (R). Against the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 330 of 1998 (R) the S.L.A. (Civil) No. CC 2524 of 2000 has been converted into Civil Appeal No. 8287 of 2000 which has been dismissed with the cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.01.2011. (2025: JHHC:38725) 7 5. Faced with the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel for the appellant Union of India has not been able to dispute the aforesaid fact situation which have been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Rather, the learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that he is under instruction that the compensation assessed in the other cases is in the process of being disbursed. However, he has submitted that post award interest and solatium is not permissible in the eyes of law. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties the sole point for determination in the light of the arguments of the appellant is whether the solatium and interest has been rightly awarded by the learned Arbitrator? 7. The undisputed facts apparent out of record is that the impugned award has been passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952). The matter was referred to arbitration for determination of just compensation for the lands which were requisitioned as back as in the year 1942 and ultimately acquired by the Central Government vide notification dated 13.01.1987 under the aforesaid Act of 1952. Admittedly, all the lands involved in this case are falling in Village- Tumbaguttu, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. The lands were acquired vide Case No. 7 of 1986-87 along with lands in other adjoining villages, namely, Khijri, Kutiyatu, Lodma and Sidrol for establishment of Khojatoli Camp. The award in connection with the acquisition was prepared in the year 1989. 8. The claimants claimed that no notice was issued in the year 1986 in the prescribed form under the Act of 1952 and therefore the interested person has resisted the award under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by filing petition before the Deputy Commissioner. When their grievance was not met and an arbitrator was appointed in the matter of Senath Munda and others by the order of the High Court, some of the (2025: JHHC:38725) 8 claimants who had received the amount of award under protest filed writ petition being CWJC No. 3784 of 1998 (R) for a direction for appointment of an Arbitrator. The writ petition was allowed against which L.P.A. No. 268 of 2000 (R) was dismissed, but in spite of that no Arbitrator was appointed and ultimately Contempt Proceeding No. 644 of 2009 was filed and the Court was pleased to direct for appointment of an Arbitrator. Consequently, the Arbitrator was appointed vide notification dated 17.03.2010 and there was extension vide notification dated 07.01.2012. The claimants appeared and claimed compensation at the minimum rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre along with solatium @ 30% and 12% interest from the date of acquisition till the date of payment with cost and future interest. 9. The Union of India had filed counter-claim and opposed the prayer of the claimants. The Union of India also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Musha and others reported in J.T. 1995 (8) 289. 10. To the counter-claim, the claimants stated that there was no agreement in Form-K arrived at before making the award and the decision passed in the case of Musha (supra) was not in favour of the Union of India. 11. With respect to delay of 11 years in filing the writ petition for appointment of Arbitrator, it was asserted that the protest was made by the claimants at number of times and therefore there was delay on the part of the Union of India and not on the part of the claimants. It was also asserted that the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1386 of 1989 was with respect to all the lands that fell under acquisition in the year 1986-87. 12. The learned Arbitrator framed the following issues for consideration: - “1. Who are the person entitled to receive compensation and what would be the just and proper compensation for the lands acquired? 2. Whether the amount of compensation was fixed by an agreement and received by the claimants U/s 8 (1) (a) of the requisitioning and acquisition of immovable property Act, 1952? (2025: JHHC:38725) 9 3. Whether the compensation amount assessed by the competent authority and paid in absence of any agreement amount to receipt of the compensation on protest entitling the claimants to claim the further enhanced compensation? 4. Whether the acceptance of the compensation by the claimants amount to receipt of the final compensation by estopping them from claiming any enhance compensation in arbitration, if there is no agreement? 5. Whether the awardees are entailed to get solarium and interest, if so, what should be the proper rate of solatium and interest? 6. Whether the claimants are entitled to the cost and it so what should be the cost? 7. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation when the writ has been filed after laps of more than 11 years. 8. Any other relief or relief to which the claimants are entitled to?” 13. The learned Arbitrator considered all the oral and documentary evidences on record and ultimately held in paragraph 12 that the number of claimants either himself or through original awardees received the amount of compensation with objection. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator took point nos. 2, 3 and 4 and while considering the same also referred to the judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Musha & Others reported in 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 660 and held that the case of Musha (supra) did not apply to the facts of the case for the simple reason that the Union of India failed to prove the date of service of notice from which 14 days were to be counted, even if not the Form-K, but the spirit of law was to be considered, the onus of which was upon the Union of India. The learned Arbitrator ultimately recorded a finding in paragraph 16 and 17 as under: - “16. Thus, I find that the ratio of the Munsha case does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case for the simple reason that the opposite parties failed to prove the date of service of notice from which 14 days was to be counted, even if not the Form-K, but the spirit of law was to be considered, the onus of which was on the opposite parties. 17. The claimants who did not file protest or did not endorse their objection at the time of receiving the award also were parties in writ and considering their grievance the Hon’ble (2025: JHHC:38725) 10 Court directed for appointment of Arbitrator, therefore Protest or no protest by the awardees/interested persons, it is held that as there was no award as per the provisions under the Rules, the dispute therefore continued. Consequently the acceptance of the compensation under the circumstances discussed above does not stop the awardees/interested persons from claiming any enhanced compensation. All these points are decided in favor of the claimants and against the opposite parties.” 14. The learned Arbitrator decided the aforesaid points in favour of the claimants and against the Union of India. 15. Vide paragraph-18, the learned Arbitrator took up point nos. 5, 6 and 7 and recorded that in the present case, there has been delay of 24 years since the date of acquisition. The learned Arbitrator referred to the Arbitration Case No. 08/1993 passed in the case of Chaiyo Oraon & Others vs. Union of India & Others with regard to land in village Kutiyatu whereby the compensation was fixed @ Rs. 2,000/- per decimal which was further following in Arbitration Case No. 01/2002 in the case of Sanath Munda vs. Union of India whose award was confirmed up till the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the same rate of Rs. 2,000/- per decimal. 16. This court finds that the fact remains that from the same village with respect to requisition of the property by defence in the year 1942 and acquisition of the property in the year 1987, the Union of India had appointed arbitrator only after filing of the writ petition and in the present case the arbitrator was appointed by virtue of writ petition being CWJC No. 3784 of 1998 (R) which was disposed of on 17.03.2010 giving rise to Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2010. This court finds that the learned Arbitrator has considered this aspect of the matter by awarding solatium as well as interest vide paragraph 18 to 22 of the award as under: - “ 18. Point No. 5, 6 and 7 are taken together for determination. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the Act and Rules do not provide for solatium and interest as also cost, consequently the claimants are not entitled to receive it. It has been also pleaded that because of the lapse of 12 years in filing the writ, the claimants are not entitled to such relief including the enhancement. (2025: JHHC:38725) 11 So far the delayed filing of the writ application and the grant of relief by the Hon'ble High Court is concerned, in this proceeding, I am not competent to question the order of the Hon'ble High Court which allowed the writ and directed for appointment of Arbitrator after 12 years from the acquisition. So far solatium and interest are concerned, true it is that the Act and Rules do not provide for it but the learned counsel for the opposite parties relying on Prabhu Dayal and others Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 221 wherein solatium as also the interest were allowed mainly because of the failure of the opposite parties in referring the matter to the Arbitrator after a delay of 5 years. In the instant case there has been a delay of 24 years since the acquisition. 19. In Arbitration Case No. 8 of 1993 Chaiyo Oraon and others Vs. Union of India and others in the land of village Kutiyatu were acquired, the Hon'ble Arbitrator had fixed the just amount of compensation @2000 per dismal i.e. (Annexure-17). This was further followed in another arbitral proceedings i.e. Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2002 Sanath Munda Vs. Union of India, the award of which has been confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra), the same rate of Rs. 2000 per dismal was awarded as the just and fair award for the land per dismal of the village Khijri, Kutiyatu, Lodma and Sidrol. The solatium was given in this case as 20% and not @ 15% as was given in the earlier award (supra) probably considering even the greater delay. Thus, in my opinion, in order to have parity as the lands in question in this case also fall in Tumbaguttu, the just amount of compensation will be Rs. 2000(Rs. Two thousand) per dismal, solatium 20% on the amount due i.e. (just valuation of land amount already received as per payment vouchers) and interest 9% per annum on the balance amount be on just valuation of land amount already received as per payment vouchers) from the date of gazette notification of acquisition till the date of this award…..” 17. With respect to village Khijri, Kutiyatu, Lodma and Sidrol, it was also observed that the solatium was given in the case of Sanat Munda @ 20% and not @ 15% and this was by considering the greater delay. The learned Arbitrator ultimately opined that in order to maintain parity, the land in question in the present case falling in Tumbagutu, the just amount of compensation would be Rs. 2,000/- per (2025: JHHC:38725) 12 decimal, solatium 20% on the amount due and interest @ 9% per annum on the balance amount from the date of gazette notification of acquisition till the date of the award. The learned Arbitrator directed the Union of India to make payment within three months from the date of the award i.e. 05.04.2012 with interest @ 9% per annum as post award interest and it also observed that if the awarded amount is not paid within fixed time, the post award interest amount would be @ 12% per annum till the date of payment. The awarded amount has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the award which is as under: - “21. In the result, the following award is given:- (i) Valuation of the total land acquired shall be Rs. Two Lakh per acre to be paid to the claimant (ii) Solatium @ 20% on that amount be paid to the claimant. (iii) Interest from 13.1.1987 (date of acquisition) on the residual amount be paid to the claimant till the date of award i.e. 5.4.2012. @ 9% per annum for 25 years 2 month and 22 days. (iv) The cost of Arbitration including the office expenses (Arbitrator Fee Rs. 3000/- per sitting and Office expenses Rs. 200 per sittings for 34 sittings, is Rs. 1,08,800/- which shall be paid by the opposite party to the claimants. In proportion of their lands. (v) The schedule below forms the part of this Award.” 18. The post award interest was awarded in the following manner: - “…………. The above is my award and I hereby direct the respondent, the Union of India in the department of defence to make payment within three months from this date with Interest @9% per annum as post award interest, if the amount so awarded is not paid by the time fixed, the post award interest shall be @ 12% per annum till the date of payment.” 19. This Court finds that the interest from 13.01.1987 till the date of award i.e. 05.04.2012 was directed to be paid @ 9% on the residual amount payable to the claimants and the award directed the payment of interest till the expiry of three months @ 9% as post award interest and on account of default in payment, the rate of post award interest was fixed @ 12% per annum till the date of payment. This Court finds that the solatium @ 20% has been directed to be paid. 20. This Court also finds that though the aforesaid Act of 1952 does not provide for payment of solatium and interest, but the learned (2025: JHHC:38725) 13 Arbitrator has followed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in Prabhu Dayal and others Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 221 wherein solatium and also interest was allowed mainly on account of failure of the Union of India in referring the matter to arbitration after a delay of 5 years. 21. This Court is of the view that in the present case, the learned Arbitrator has recorded delay on the part of the Union of India which is to the extent of 24 years since the date of acquisition and the arbitrator was appointed only after writ petition was filed. 22. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Arbitrator and the only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the award of solatium and interest including post award interest is devoid of any merits. 23. This court finds that the impugned award is a well-reasoned award considering every aspect of fact and law and there is neither any illegality nor any perversity calling for any interference in the impugned award. 24. This court finds that the similar awards arising from the same village have been passed and attained finality. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the award of solatium and interest calls for interference, is devoid of any merit as solatium as also the interest has been allowed on account of the failure of the Union of India to act promptly in referring the matter to arbitration and the arbitrator was appointed only after the claimants filed writ petition seeking appointment of arbitrator as is apparent from the impugned award itself. This court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 25. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 26. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22/12/2025 Uploaded on: 14.01.2026 Binit