DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                    [2010) 12 S.C.R. 1059


               DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC.                           A
                               V.
                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 9198-9202 OF 2010)
                                       '
                     OCTOBER 26, 2010
                                                                   B
     [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

     Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act, 1952:
                                                                   c
     Solatium and interest - Acquisition of land under the Act
- Delay of 16 years in appointment of arbitrator- Held: Award
of solatium and interest is justified as there was an inordinate
delay in the appointment of an arbitrator and consequent
delay in determination of compensation payable to the land         0
owners.

     Compensation - Enhancement of - Acquisition of large
extent of land situate in the outskirts of Pathankot for defence
purposes under the Act - The enhancement of compensation
 was considered by High Court in a similar case for acquisition    E
of land arising out of the very same acquisition process - In
that case, High Court enhanced the compensation payable
to the land-owners to Rs.350/- per maria - The said order was
not challenged and attained finality - The lands in question
were all acquired for the very same purpose and were situated      F
on the outskirts of a growing town like Pathankot - The growing
rion-agricu/ture potential of such lands was a/so not disputed
- Therefore, there was no reason why the amount of
compensation payable to the landowners m the instant case
should also not be enhanced to Rs. 350/- per maria with            G
proportionate benefits to1•.tards solatium and interest.

    A large extent of land situate in the outskirts of
Pathankot in the State of Punjab and underlying different
                             1059                                  H
    1060   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A survey numbers was acquired for defence purposes
  under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition
  of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The parties failed to
  arrive at an agreement as to the amount of compensation
  payable to the expropriated owners of the land in
B question. The land owners requested for the appointment
  of an arbitrator for determining the amount payable to
  them. The Government did not respond to the request.
  The land owners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus
  to the Government to appoint an arbitrator. The High
C Court directed the Government to appoint an arbitrator.
  An arbitrator was appointed 16 years after the acquisition
  of land. The arbitrator held that the owners were entitled
  to compensation that ranged between Rs.50 per maria for
  one batch of appeals to Rs.200 for the other batch of
  appeals. Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first
0
  year and 15% for the subsequent years till payment of the
  amount of compensation was also held payable to the
  landowners. Both, the Union of India and the land
  owners, challenged the award made by the arbitrator
  before the High Court. The plea of the Union of India was
E that the arbitrator was not justified in awarding nor was
  there any provision for granting solatium and interest
  under the Act. The land-owners prayed for enhancement
  of compensation payasble to them to Rs.500/- per maria.
  The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union
F of India. The cross-objections filed by the owners were
  also dismissed by separate orders unsupported by any
  reasons for denying the enhancement prayed for by
  them. Relying upon the decision in Jagdish Prasad v. The
  Competent Authority, the High Court held that award of
G compensation @ Rs.150/- per maria was justified on a
  uniform basis for all kinds of lands. It also held that the
  award of solatium and interest was justified having
  regard to the delay on the part of the government in

H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA &1061
                   ORS.

appointing an arbitrator. The High Court, however, opined      A
that instead of describing the amount as solatium and
interest, the same should be described as compensation
for the acquired lands. Aggrieved, the Union of India and
the land owners filed the instant appeals.
                                                               B
    Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. In lnder Singh's case, the High Court upheld
the grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar
acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in
January 1970. While doing so, the High Court relied upon       C
its decision in Shanker Singh's case. The decision in lnder
Singh's case and Shanker Singh's case was not challenged
by filing any appeal. In that view of the matter and having
regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of
16 years in the appointment of an arbitrator in the instant    D
cases, the land owners are entitled to the benefit of
solatium and interest especially when the owners who
have lost their land in similar circumstances and for the
same purpose have been given such a benefit. [Para 8]
[1070-C-F]                                                     E

     2. As regards the question whether the land owners
are entitled to claim any enhancement in the amount of
compensation, the similar question arising out of the very
same acquisition process was dealt by the High Court in
                                                               F
*lnder Singh's case. Relying upon its decisi.on in **Shanker
Singh's case, the High Court in */nder Singh's case
enhanced the compensation p~yable to the land-owners
to Rs.350/- per maria. The said order attained finality. The
refusal of a similar relief in the remaining cases was not,
therefore, considered just and equitable when there were       G
no distinguishing features to justify such a refusal. The
High Court also found that the decision in **Shanker
Singh's case was squarely applicable in the case before
it on account of the proximity of the acquisitions in point
of time. The notification in **Shanker Singh's case was        H
   1062    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010) 12 S.C.R.


A issued on 6th March, 1970 whereas that in *lnder Singh's
  case it was issued on 9th January, 1970. The amount of
  compensation determined in **Shanker Singh's case was,
  therefore, found by the High Court to be relevant for
  award of compensation in *lnder Singh's case also. The
B lands in question were all acquired for the very same
  purpose and are situated on the outskirts of a growing
  town like Pathankot. The growing non-agriculture
  potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The
  High Court failed to notice all these aspects apparently
c because the decisions in **Shanker Singh's case and that
  delivered in *lnder Singh's case were subsequent to the
  impugned order. On the material available, there was no
  reason why the amount of compensation payable to the
  landowners in the appeals should also not be enhanced
  to Rs.350/- per maria with proportionate benefits towards
0
  solatium and interest as awarded by the arbitrator and
  upheld by the High Court in the two cases and in similar
  other cases. In CA 9201/2010, the appeal was filed by the
  Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No
  appeal was filed by the owners in the case for
E enhancement of the amount of compensation. Even
  otherwise, in the absence of any cogent evidence to
  justify any such enhancement, there was no room for
  directing payment of a large amount of compensation.
  The award made by the arbitrator is modified to the
F extent that instead of Rs.200/- per maria, the owners shall
  be entitled to Rs. 350/- per maria towards compensation
  with proportionate benefits like solatium and interest on
  the said amount. The appellants-owners shall also be
  entitled to proportionate costs in this court and the Courts
G below. The award passed by the arbitrator is modified to
  the extent that instead of Rs.200 per maria, the owners
  shall be entitled to Rs.350/- per maria towards
  compensation with proportionate benefits like solatium
  and interest on the said amount. [Paras 9-11] [1070-G-H;
H 1071-C-F-G-H; 1072-A-F]
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA &1063
                   ORS.

    Union of India v. Parma/ Singh and Others 2009 (1) SCC     A
618 - relied on.

     *Union of India v. lnder Singh and Anr. in LPA no.1918
of 1989; **Shankar Singh and Others v. Union of India 1988
(1) PLR 163 - approved.
                                                               B
     Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khos/a (Dead) by LRs.
1993 Supp. (2) SCC 149; Union of India v. Chajju Ram 2003
(5) SCC 568; Prabhu Dayal and Others v. Union of India
1995 (4) SCC 221; Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh AIR 1961
SC 908; Union of India v. Chajju Ram 2003 (5) SCC 568;         C
Swift and Co. v. Board of Trade 1925 AC 520(HL); Inglewood
Pulp and Paper Co. v. New Brunswick Electric Power
Commission 1928 AC 492 - referred to.

                    Case Law Reference:                        D
    1993 Supp. (2) sec 149 referred to          Para 3
    2003 (5) sec 568           referred to      Para 3
    1995 (4) sec 221           referred to      Para 6
                                                               E
    2009 (1) sec 618           relied on        Para 7
    AIR 1961 SC 908            referred to      Para 7
    1925 AC 520(HL)            referred to      Para 7
    1928 AC 492                referred to      Para 7         F

    1988 (1) PLR 163           approved         Paras 8, 9
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9198-9202 of 2010.
                                                               G
     From the Judgment & Order dated 23.08.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in X-Objection No.
59 Cll of 1988 in FAO No. 59 of 1988, X-Objection No. 58 Cll
of 1988 in FAO No. 67of1988, X-Objection No. 61 Cll of 1988
        -----
                                                               H
    1064     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   in FAO No. 57 of 1988 & X-Objection No. 60 Cll of 1988 in
    FAO No. 58 of 1988 & X-Objection No. 62 Cll of 1988 in FAO
    No. 56 of 1988.

                                    WITH

B   C.A. Nos. 9203, 9204, 9205-9209, 9210-9215, 9216-9217,
    9218-9219 of 2010.

        S.M. Sarin P.N. Puri, Dr. Lakhshmi Shastri, Anand Verma,
    Kinchik Singh, Vimla Sinhi, Harish Kr. Khinchi, 8. Krishna
c   Prasad, D.S. Mahra, Sanjay Sarin, Manjusha Wadhwa for the
    appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Two questions fall for determination
D in these appeals that arise out of orders passed by the High
  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. These are -

                 1)    Whether award of solatium and interest is
                       permissible even in cases where acquisition
E                      of land is made under Requisitioning and
                       Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952;
                       and

                2)    Whether the land owners were entitled to
                      enhancement of compensation beyond
F                     Rs.200/- per maria determined by the
                      learned Single Judge.

    The questions arise in the following backdrop.

       2. A large extent of land situate in the outskirts of Pathankot
G in the State of Punjab and underlying different survey numbers
  was acquired for defence purposes under the provisions of
  Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
  1952. Failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement as to the
  amount of compensation payable to the expropriated owners
H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & 1065
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

of the land in question led the owners to seek appointment of         A
an Arbitrator for determination of the amount payable to them.
The Government did not respond to the said request for a long
time which forced the land-owners to approach the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in a writ petition seeking a mandamus
directing the Government to appoint an Arbitrator. It is only after   B
the said petition was allowed and a mandamus issued that the
Government appointed the District Judge, Gurdaspur as an
Arbitrator, sixteen years after the lands had been acquired. The
Arbitrator recorded evidence and after hearing the parties came
to the conclusion that the owners were entitled to compensation       c
that ranged between Rs.50/- per maria (Rs. 1000/- per kanal)
for land relevant to Civil Appeal No.9216-9217/2010 to Rs.200/
- per maria for lands relevant to Civil No. 9198-9202/2010.
Solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first year and 15%
for the subsequent years till payment of the amount of                0
compensation to them was also held payable to the
landowners. Aggrieved by the said award the Union of India
appealed to the High Court, inter atia, contending that the
Arbitrator was not justified in awarding nor was there any
provision for granting solatium and interest under the Act
                                                                      E
aforementioned. The land-owners also challenged the award
made by the Arbitrator by filing cross-objections before the
High Court in which they prayed for enhancement of
compensation payable to them to Rs.500/- per maria. By a
common judgment impugned in these appeals the High Court
has dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India. The            F
cross-objections filed by the owners were also dismissed by
separate orders unsupported by any reasons for denying the
enhancement prayed for by them. Relying upon the decision in
Jagdish Prasad v. The Competent Authority, the High Court
held that award of compensation @ Rs.150/- per maria by the           G
Arbitrator was.justified on a uniform basis for all kinds of lands.
The High Court overlooked the fact that in some cases the
compensation awarded was Rs.50/- per maria while in some
others the same was awarded @ Rs.200/- per maria. The High
Court also noticed that compensation at the same rate had been        H
    1066    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   granted to owners of land in village Nalunga which award had
    been affirmed by the High Court in LPA 721 of 1987 filed by
    the Union of India and decided on 3rd September, 1987.

       3. The High Court also came to the conclusion that award
B of solatium and interest was justified having regard to the delay
  on the part of Government in appointing an Arbitrator. Reliance
  was placed by the High Court on the decision of this Court in
  Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs. 1993
  Supp. (2) SCC 149. The High Court, however, modified the
C order to the extent that instead of describing the amount as
  solatium and interest the same was described as
  compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. Both
  the parties have come up in appeal against the above order.
  While the appeals filed by the Union of India call in question
  the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in regard
D to solatium and interest, the cross appeals filed by the owners
  assail the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court
  whereby cross-objections seeking enhancement of the amount
  of compensation to Rs.500/- per maria have been rejected by
  non-speaking orders.
E
       4. It is common ground that the provisions of the
  Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
  1952 do not make any provision for the grant of solatium or
  interest to the expropriated landowners. The absence of any
F such provision in the said Act was in fact made a basis for a
  challenge to the constitutional validity of the enactment which
  was repelled by this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan
  Khos/a 1993 (Supp) 2 SCC 149. This Court pointed out that
  any comparison between acquisition made under the
G Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
   1952 with that made under the Land Acquisition Act would be
  odious in view of the dissimilarities between the two
  enactments. That decision was followed in subsequent
   pronouncements of this Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram
H 2003 (5) sec 568 where a similar attack was mounted against
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA &1067
            ORS. [TS. THAKUR, J.]

the constitutional validity of Defence of India Act, 1971 but        A
repelled by this Court relying upon the decision in Hari Krishan
Khosla. What is noteworthy is that in both these matters this
Court had made a distinction between cases in which there
was inordinate delay in the appointment of an Arbitrator and
consequent delay in the determination of the amount of               B
compensation payable to the owners and other case where
there was no such delay. In paragraph 79 of the judgment of
this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla, this Court observed: .

     "This is a case in which for 16 years no arbitrator was         C
     appointed. We think it is just and proper to apply the
     principle laid down in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v.
     Union of India (Civil Appeal Nos. 470 and 471 of 1985,
     disposed of by this Court on February 11, 1985). The Court
     held as under:
                                                                     D
           "Having regard to the peculiar facts and
    circumstances of the present case and particularly in view
    of the fact that the appointment of the arbitrator was not
    made by the Union of India for a period of 16 years, we
    think this is a fit case in which solatium at the rate of 30     E
    per cent of the amount of compensation and interest at the
    rate of 9 per cent per annum should be awarded to the
    appellants. We are making this order having regard to the
    fact that the law has in the meanwhile been amended with
    a view to providing solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and      F
    interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum."

      5. Even in Union of India v. Chajju Ram (supra), this Court
noted the delay in the appointment of an Arbitrator and directed
that the amount of interest and solatium paid to the land owners.
decades back shall not be recovered from the land owners.            G
This Court observed:

    "In these cases also, it is said that the arbitrators have not
    yet been appointed despite the demand made in this
    behalf by the respondents. The amount of solatium at the         H
    1068   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A      rate of 15% per annum and the interest thereupon had
       been paid in the early eighties when the Punjab and
       Haryana High Court declared the said Act ultra vires
       Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

       In the peculiar fact situation obtaining in these cases and
B
       inasmuch as the amounts sought to be recovered are small
       which were paid to the respondents decades back, we are
       of the opinion that interest of justice shall be met if the
       appellants are directed not to recover the amount of
       compensation from the respondents pursuant to or in
c      furtherance of this judgment. However, we hasten to add
       that this direction shall not be treated as a precedent."

       6. The above decisions were then followed by this Court
  in Prabhu Dayal and Others v. Union of India 1995 (4) SCC
D 221. That was also a case where the appointment of Arbitrator
  was delayed by 22 years. This Court relying upon the decision
  in Hari Krishan Khosla and Harbans Singh v. Union of India,
  C.A. Nos. 470 & 471 of 1985 disposed of on 11th February
  1985, observed:
E
        "It is next contended that the appellants are entitled to the
        solatium though in law they are not entitled but in equity
        they are entitled to the solatium for the reason that for 22
        years arbitrator was not appointed to determine the
        market value. In support they relied upon the judgment of
F       this Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla. Therein
        this Court relied upon another judgment in Harbans Singh
        v. Union of India. In that judgment this Court said that
        having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
        the present case and in view of the fact that the
G       appointment of the arbitrator was not made by the Union
        of India for period of 16 years, this Court considered in
        equity to give solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the
        amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 9 per
        cent per annum should be awarded to the appellants
H       therein. In this case, the question of appointing the
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & 1069
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    arbitrator would arise only when the market value offered         A
    was rejected by the claimants. The offer was made and
    rejected on 13-10-1961 and the arbitrator came to appoint
    on 22-9-1966 after five years. Under these circumstances,
    the claimants are entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per
    cent on the market value. The appellants did not challenge        B
    the rate of interest granted at 6 per cent. Accordingly they
    are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per
    annum. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The
    appellants are entitled to 1he relief as stated above. No
    costs."                                                           c
     7. We may at this stage to refer to a recent decision of
this Court in Union of India v. Parma/ Singh and Others 2009
(1) sec 618 where the question whether solatium and interest
could be awarded to the expropriated land owners under the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,             D
1952 was once again examined. Relying upon the decision of
this Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh AIR 1961 SC 908,
Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) and Union of
India v. Chajju Ram 2003 (5) SCC 568 and the English
decision in Swift and Co. v. Board of Trade 1925 AC 520(HL)           E
and Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. v. New Brunswick Electric
Power Commission 1928 AC 492, this Court upheld the award
of interest in favour of the landowners. This Court said:

    "When a property is acquired, and law provides for                F
    payment of compensation to be determined in the manner
    specified, ordinarily compensation shall have to be paid
    at the time of taking possession in pursuance of
    acquisition. By applying equitable principles, the courts
    have always awarded interest on the delayed payment of            G
    compensation in regard to acquisition of any property.
    When a requisitioned property is acquired, as possession
    had already been taken from the landholder, the
    compensation becomes payable from the date of
    acquisition. When a property is requisitioned, the
                                                                      H
       1070     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 12 S.C.R.


  A         landowner is compensated for the denial of possession by
            paying compensation based on the rent it would have
            fetched had it not been requisitioned. But once the property
            is acquired, the rent is stopped, as compensation based
          . on open market value becomes payable against
  B         acquisition. Therefore, while interest is payable, it is not
            awarded from the date of requisition (taking over of
            possession) but only from the date of acquisition. This
            principle has been recognised and applied by the courts
            consistently."
  c       8. It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana has in Union of India v. lnder Singh and Anr. in LPA
    No. 1918 of 1989 and connected matters upheld grant of
    solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition made
    in terms of a notification issued in January 1970. While doing
  D so the High Court placed reliance upon its decision in Shankar
    Singh and Others v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163 Mr.
    Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly conceded that
    no appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the
    decision in Shankar Singh's case (supra) or that delivered in
  E Union of India v. lnder Singh and Anr (supra). In that view of
    the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that there was
    an inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an
    Arbitrator in the present cases, we have no hesitation in holding
    that the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions
- F referred to above would entitle the land owners to the benefit
    of solatium and interest especially when the owners who have
    lost land in similar circumstances and for the same purpose
    have been given such a benefit.

  G          9. That brings us to the question whether the land-owners
        are entitled to claim any enhancement in the amount of
      · compensation determined in these cases. In Union of India etc.
        v. lnder Singh and Anr. (LP-A No.1918 of 1989) and connected
        matters to which we have referred earlier the High Court has
        upheld the enhancement of compensation to Rs.350/- per
  H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA &1071
            ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

maria. The High Court was in that case dealing with a similar       A
question arising out of the very same acquisition process.
Relying upon its decision in Shanker Singh and Ors. v. Union
of India 1988 ( 1) PLR 163, a Single Bench of the High Court
in lnder Singh's case (supra) enhanced the compensation
payable to the land-owners to Rs.350/- per maria. Five appeals      B
were preferred before the Division Bench against the said
order out of which two appeals were dismissed by separate
orders of the Court while the third was dismissed for non-
prosecution. The result was that out of five appeals challenging
the order passed by the Single Judge awards in favour of the        c
land-owners in the case of three dismissed appeals attained
finality entitling the land-owners respondents in those appeals
to compensation @ Rs.350/- per maria. The refusal of a similar
relief in the remaining cases was not, therefore, considered just
and equitable when there were no distinguishing features to
                                                                    0
justify such a refusal. The High Court also found that the
decision in Shanker Singh' case (supra) was squarely
applicable in the case before it on account of the proximity of
the acquisitions in point of time. The notification in Shanker
Singh' case (supra) was issued on 6th March, 1970 whereas
                                                                    E
that in lnder Singh' case (supra) was issued on 9th January,
1970. The amount of compensation determined in Shanker
Singh's case (supra) was therefore found by the High Court to
be relevant for award of compensation in lnder Singh's case
(supra) also.
                                                                    F
      10. In the present batch of cases except the case the
notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which
is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker
Singh and lnder Singh's cases (supra). The notification in
Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 9204/            G
2010) was issued on 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964.
That apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very
same purpose and are situated on the outskirts of a growing
town like Pathankot. The growing non-agriculture potential of
such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has       H .
    1072    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the
  decisions in Shanker Singh's case and that delivered in lnder
  Singh's case (supra) were handed down subsequent to the
  impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available
  before us we see no reason why the amount of compensation
B payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should
  also not be enhanced to Rs.350/- per maria with proportionate
  benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the
  Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in
  similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part
c of this order. In so far as Mohinder Singh's case (supra) is
  concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India
  against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed
  by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of
  compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of any cogent
  evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for
0
  directing payment of a large amount of compensation.

       11. In the result, we allow Civil Appeals Nos.9198-9202/
  2010 and Civil Appeals Nos.9218-9219/2010 filed by the
  owners and modify the award made by the Arbitrator to the
E extent that instead of Rs.200/- per maria, the owners shall be
  entitled to 350/- per maria towards compensation with
  proportionate benefits like solatium and interest on the said
  amount. The appellants-owners shall also be entitled to
  proportionate costs in this Court and the Courts below.
F
         Civil Appeals Nos.9203/2010, 9204/2010, 9205-9209/
    2010, 9210-9215/2010 and 9216-9217/2010 filed by Union of
    India, however, fail and are dismissed leaving the parties to
    bear their own costs in these appeals.

    D.G.                                        Appeals allowed.