DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICERversusSYED ABDUL SALEEM AND OTHERS

                        [2015) 1 S.C.R. 964


A                 DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER
                                  v.
              SYED ABDUL SALEEM AND OTHERS
                 {Civil Appeal No. 3137 of 2010)
                       FEBRUARY 02, 2015.
B
       [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

       Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
  Act, 1952 - Acquisition of land under - Payment of solatium
C and interest alongwith principal amount of compensation -
  Propriety of - Held: Even though the requisition statute does
  not provide for payment of solatium and interest, the same
  can be granted on equitable grounds in cases of extensive
  protraction - In the present case, there is dilation of 19 years
D on the part of the appellant - Hence, award of solatium and
  interest justified - Appellant also directed to pay costs to the
  respondents "'"'.' Equity.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

E      HELD: 1. "Equity is a mitigant to the harshness of
  common law" is a well-known Common Law maxim.
  Several Benches of this Court have consistently applied
  mutatis mutandis the equity resting in this maxim to
  mitigate the harshness of this requisition statute, thereby
F 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. In the present case, dilation by the Appellant
  of 19 years in reappointment of the statutory Arbitrator,
G command and not merely commend the application of
  the precedent. Therefore, the award of solatium and
  interest along with the principal compensation amount is
  confirmed. The Appellant shall pay costs to the
  Respondents. [Paras 6 and 7) [969-A·D]
H                             964
   DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. SYED ABDUL                 965
                 SALEEM
     Union of India v. Chajju Ram (2003) 5 SCC 568: 2003      A
(3) SCR 647 - followed.
     Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khos/a (1993) Supp. 2
SCC 149: 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 620; Union of India v. Parma/
Singh (2009) 1 SCC 618: 2008 (16) SCR 674; Di/awar Singh      B
v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 357: 2010 (12) SCR 1059-
relied on.
                   Case Law Reference:
    1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 620 Relied on             Para 6      c
    2008 (16) SCR 674         Relied on           Para 6
    2010 (12) SCR 1059         Relied on          Para 6

    2003 (3) SCR 647           Followed           Para 6
                                                              D
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3137 of 2010.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in      E
CMA No. 1986 of 2003.

     K. Radhakrishnan, B. Krishna Prasad, Rekha Pandey for
the Appellant.

    V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan for the Respondents.         F .

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     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 G
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 from Rs.6/- per sq. H
    966       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A   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 lbrahimbagh District, Hyderabad, were
    acquired for setting up of an Artillery Centre at Golconda. The
B   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
c   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
0
    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 SOC, LA (Defence)
    in the Court, vide letter dated 03.02.1975.
E
         2. Dissatisfied with the said compensation, the
   Respondents thereafter requested for the appointment of a
   Statutory Arbitrator. The Government appointed the Arbitrator
   on 21.10.1980, with a direction to him to dispose of the matter
F 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%
G 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
H Arbitrator. The Arbitrator observed: "it is no doubt true that the
   DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. SYED ABDUL                       967
        SALEEM [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

matter was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court for some years            A
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       B
Arbitrator applied the principle enunciated in Union of India v.
Hari Krishan Khos/a (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         C
appeal before the High Court; Cross Objections were preferred
by the Appellant. The 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       D
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   E
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         F
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?
                                                                      G
     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 the hardships
suffered by affected/dispossessed parties in requisition              H
    968      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C   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
D   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
E   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
    previous pronouncement in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v.
    Union of India [disposed of by this Court on 11.02.1985 in Civil
F   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 s_tatutory 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-
G   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. Parma!
    Singh (2009) 1 SCC 618 and thereafter in Dilawar Singh v.
H   Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 357, have consistently applied
    DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. SYED ABDUL                     969
         SALEEM [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

mutatis mutandis the equity resting in this maxim to mitigate       A
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      B
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 confirm
the award of solatiuni and interest therein, along with the         c
principal compensation amount.

     7. Appeal is dismissed. Since this Appeal stood covered
on all fours, the Appellant shall pay costs to the Respondents.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                             Appeal dismissed.   D