Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3137 OF 2010

DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER          ..      APPELLANT

VERSUS

SYED ABDUL SALEEM AND OTHERS          .. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1 The  Appellant  has  by  the  pulpit  of  this  Civil  Appeal  assailed  the  

Judgment  and  final  Order  dated  13.3.2007  passed  by  the  Hon’ble  High  

Court  of  Judicature,  Andhra  Pradesh  (Hyderabad)  in  CMA No.  1986  of  

2003, rendered in the matter of  Syed Abdul Saleem v. The Government of  

Andhra Pradesh,  wherein the appeal  preferred by the Respondents  herein  

was allowed by the High Court, which enhanced the rate of compensation

Page 2

from Rs.6/- per sq. yard awarded by the Learned Arbitrator, to Rs.12/- per  

sq. yard along with the award of 30% solatium and interest at 9% from the  

date of possession, i.e., 28.07.1970. The subject lands, situated at Village  

Ibrahimbagh  District,  Hyderabad,  were  acquired  for  setting  up  of  an  

Artillery  Centre  at  Golconda.  The  Ministry  of  Defence,  Government  of  

India,  accorded  its  sanction  dated  1.12.1969  for  the  acquisition  of  land  

admeasuring  1181.70  acres,  at  an  estimated  total  cost  approximating  

Rs.35,45,100/-.  The  lands  of  the  Respondents,  admeasuring  2  acres  28  

guntas in Revenue Sy. No. 94, and 1 acre 27 guntas in Revenue Sy.No. 95,  

totaling 4 acres and 15 guntas, were acquired under the provisions of the  

Requisitioning and Acquisition  of  Immovable Property Act,  1952 by the  

Central  Government.  The  Form  ‘J’  Notification  was  published  on  

22.07.1971.    The  Competent  Authority,  viz.,  the  Collector,  Hyderabad,  

offered  Rs.39,930/-  as  compensation  in  respect  of  4  acres  15 guntas,  by  

fixing the rate at Rs.2/- per sq. yard.    Further, the Collector also granted  

interest at 4% p.a. from the date of publication of ‘J’ Notice to the date of  

payment; an amount of Rs.45,295.90 was deposited by SDC, LA (Defence)  

in the Court, vide letter dated 03.02.1975.  

2 Dissatisfied with the said compensation,  the Respondents  thereafter  

requested for  the appointment of a Statutory Arbitrator.  The Government  

2

Page 3

appointed the Arbitrator on 21.10.1980, with a direction to him to dispose of  

the matter within four months.   As the sole Arbitrator was unable to dispose  

of  the  matter  within  the  prescribed  period,  the  Government  once  again  

appointed  an  Arbitrator  on  11.11.1999  to  complete  the  exercise.  The  

Arbitrator enhanced the compensation from Rs.2/- per sq. yard to Rs.6/- per  

sq. yard along with solatium of 30% and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of  

taking possession of the acquired land, i.e., 28.07.1970, up till the date of  

payment. The Arbitrator recorded in his Award that after the failure of the  

first Arbitrator to dispose of the matter within a period of four months, the  

Government  took  19  years  to  appoint  another  Arbitrator.  The  Arbitrator  

observed: “it is no doubt true that the matter was stayed by the Hon’ble High  

Court for some years on account of proceedings initiated by the claimants 1  

and 2 herein. But, even after the above aspect is taken into consideration, it  

is very clear that the Government is not diligent in prosecuting the matter”.  

The fact of undue delay in the institution of arbitral proceedings having been  

determined, the Arbitrator applied the principle enunciated in Union of India  

v. Hari Krishan Khosla (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149, whereto we shall advert  

shortly, and awarded the aforesaid payment of solatium and interest.  

3 Dissatisfied with the Award, the Respondents filed an appeal before  

the High Court;  Cross  Objections were preferred by the Appellant.   The  

3

Page 4

High Court  allowed the Respondents’  Appeal  while dismissing the Cross  

Objections of the Appellant and enhanced the compensation from Rs.6/- per  

sq. yard to Rs.12/- per sq. yard and upheld the Arbitrator’s Award granting  

solatium of 30% and interest at 9%. The High Court also placed reliance on  

this Court’s judgment in Hari Krishna Khosla.  

4 The questions of law raised by the Appellant before us are threefold:  

Firstly,  whether  the Court  was  justified  in  granting solatium and interest  

without considering the fact that there is no provision for awarding these  

under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952;  

secondly,  whether  the  Court  was  right  in  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  

Constitutional validity of non-inclusion of the provision for the payment of  

solatium and interest in the Act has been upheld by this Court in the case of  

Hari Krishna Khosla and finally, whether the Court was right in enhancing  

the compensation from Rs.6/- per sq. yard to Rs.12/- per sq. yard without  

fully  appreciating  the  Cross  Objections  and  evidence  proffered  by  the  

Appellant?

5 Per contra, the Respondents submit that Hari Krishna Khosla, and its  

succeeding judgments, all indicate that there is a settled alcove of equity in  

the jurisprudence pertaining to land requisition.  This Court has recognized  

4

Page 5

the  hardships  suffered  by  affected/dispossessed  parties  in  requisition  

proceedings, in cases of extensive delay in the disbursal of compensation, or,  

as in this case, delay in the initiation and eventuation of proceedings under  

the statute, and has equitably extended the twin ameliorators of solatium and  

interest  on  compensation,  albeit  their  not  being  available  under  the  

requisition Statute.  

6 The submissions of both parties hereto having been adumbrated, we  

find  that  the  Appeal  is  without  merit.  The  Appellant  presents  as  

exceptionable  the  High  Court’s  enhancement  of  compensation.  But  the  

chiefly objectionable aspect to the impugned judgment and order is, in the  

submission of the Appellant, the High Court’s extra-legal Award of solatium  

and interest  on the principal  statutory compensation  awardable under  the  

Requisitioning  and  Acquisition  of  Immovable  Property  Act,  1952.  This  

Court  has  previously,  in  Hari  Krishan  Khosla,  conducted  a  thorough  

analysis  of  the  features  of  the  aforementioned  Act  apropos  the  Land  

Acquisition  Act,  1894,  and  providing  cogent  rationales  therefore,  in  our  

humble opinion rightly labelled as “odious” any attempt to make a black-

letter  comparison  of  the  two  enactments.  Whilst  upholding  the  

Constitutionality of the Requisitioning Act absent the provisions therein of  

the award of solatium and interest, the Court nevertheless, relying upon a  

5

Page 6

previous pronouncement in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union of India  

[disposed of by this Court on 11.02.1985 in Civil Appeal Nos. 470 & 471 of  

1985], found it just and proper to uphold award of both solatium (at 30%)  

and 9 % interest  along with the  principal  statutory compensation,  where  

appointment  of  the  Statutory  Arbitrator  had  been  delayed  by  16  years.  

“Equity is  a mitigant  to the harshness  of  common law” is  a  well-known  

Common Law maxim. Several Benches of this Court, from Hari Krishan  

Khosla in 1993; the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Chajju Ram  

(2003) 5 SCC 568, in the context of the Defence of India Act, 1971; Union  

of  India v. Parmal  Singh (2009) 1 SCC 618 and thereafter in Dilawar Singh  

v.  Union of  India (2010) 14 SCC 357, have consistently  applied mutatis  

mutandis the equity resting in this maxim to mitigate the harshness of this  

requisition statute, thereby providing for payment of interest and solatium to  

affected/ dispossessed parties in cases of extensive protraction, where the  

statute ex facie provides for neither of these ameliorators. The precedential  

position  being  unquestionably  clear,  we  find  that  the  facts  before  us,  

displaying dilation by the Appellant  of  19 years  in reappointment of  the  

statutory Arbitrator, command and not merely commend the application of  

the precedent. We, therefore,  sustain the Judgment of the High Court, and  

6

Page 7

confirm the award of solatium and interest therein, along with the principal  

compensation amount.  

7 Appeal is dismissed.   Since this Appeal stood covered on all fours,  

the Appellant shall pay costs to the Respondents.

                                                                    ............................................J.              [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]  

                                                .............................................J.              [ SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi, February 02,  2015.

7