Union of India & Anr. vs Dr. Asket Singh & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

1 May 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 of 2016

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 227 : 2024 INSC 409

Acts & Sections

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable…

Issue for consideration

Matter pertains to the challenge to the relief of solatium and interest on the compensation amount granted by the High Court.

Headnote

Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – s. 8(1)(a) – Compensation – Delay in payment of – Grant of solatium and interest by the High Court – Challenge to:

Held: Right to hold immovable property is no longer a fundamental right but is a right u/Art. 300A – On facts, land owned by the first respondent stood vested in the Central Government in the year 1964 – Offer for payment of compensation was made by the Collector belatedly after 12 years in 1976 – Delay of more than

12 years attributable solely to the Central Government – Since the respondents declined to accept the offer, the Arbitrator was appointed in 1976, it took slightly less than 20 years to conclude the proceedings – Nothing on record that the proceedings were delayed due to any conduct attributable to the first respondent – Delay in appointing the arbitrator must be attributed to the Central Government, as the Central Government took 12 years to offer compensation – In effect, market value prevailing on the date of acquisition was paid to the owners after lapse of more than 30 years from the date of vesting – As there are no provisions under the 1952 Act to compensate the owner for the delay in making payment of compensation, in such cases, solatium and interest must be paid by the Central Government – Compensation must be paid to the owner of the acquired property within a reasonable time from the date on which the acquired property vested in the acquiring body – Requirement of making payment of compensation within a reasonable time from the date of vesting must be read into the 1952 Act – Long delay of 12 years even in offering compensation would attract arbitrariness which is prohibited by Art. 14 – Considering the huge delay involved in payment of compensation, the High Court rightly granted solatium and interest – As the first respondent has been paid compensation

7 years back, no costs imposed – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 300A. [Paras 7-10]

Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The facts of the case are glaring. The respondents are the owners of the lands subject matter of these appeals. At the instance of the Ministry of Defence, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short “the 1952 Act”). A notice of acquisition under Section 7 of the 1952 Act was issued on 26th March, 1964 which was published in the State Government Gazette on 3rd April, 1964. The vesting of the acquired property was complete on publica

View Subscription Plans →