Summary
Compensation under the 1952 requisitioning and acquisition statute must be paid within a reasonable time of vesting despite the absence of an express solatium or interest provision. Twelve years merely to offer compensation, followed by prolonged arbitration without owner-attributable delay, justified the High Court’s solatium and interest relief. The Union’s attempt to distinguish appointment delay from disposal delay failed on these facts. Its appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether prolonged payment delay justified solatium and interest under a statute not expressly providing them.
- Whether the State could avoid relief by attributing delay chiefly to arbitral disposal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 8, Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952Vesting on gazette publication required compensation within reasonable time. Failure to reach agreement led to statutory arbitration, but did not justify the protracted nonpayment. (¶¶ 2, 3, 7, 8, 9)
- Articles 14 and 300-A, Constitution of IndiaArbitrary prolonged delay in compensating an owner whose property vested in the State implicated constitutional equality and property protection. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- The 1952 Act has no express solatium or interest provision. Earlier decisions nevertheless granted such relief in exceptional cases of inordinate delay; the guiding principle is payment within a reasonable time after vesting. That requirement must be read into the statutory scheme. (¶¶ 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)
- The State took over twelve years from vesting even to offer compensation, a delay solely attributable to the Central Government. Arbitration then remained prolonged, with no material showing obstruction by the owner; acquisition-date value was ultimately paid more than thirty years after vesting. The proposed distinction between appointment and arbitration delay did not defeat relief. (¶¶ 3, 5, 8, 9)
- Such extended delay in offering compensation was arbitrary under Article 14 and implicated Article 300-A. The judgment noted the possibility of an acquisition challenge in that setting, but the relief actually sustained was compensation-related, not annulment of acquisition. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The High Court’s thirty-percent solatium and interest at the ordered nine- and fifteen-percent rates were upheld. The appeals lacked merit and were dismissed; costs were withheld because payment had already been made about seven years earlier. (¶¶ 4, 10, 11)
Result
Union’s appeals dismissed; High Court’s solatium and interest award upheld. No costs imposed.