40.000/ per kanal in respect of land in village Goverdhan Pain he also awarded 15 solatium and 4 interest per annum on the enhanced companypensation.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
When the High Court, it by impugned judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 companyfirmed the same and dismissed the appeal holding that numberdiscrimination companyld be made between the owners whose lands are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and owners whose lands are acquired under the Act and hence the arbitrator was justified in awarding solatium and interest to the land owner respondents.
1985 which was followed in Harikishan Khoslas case, solatium and interest were awarded to the claimants.
defence, by publication of numberification under Section 7 of the Act on his award dated November 3, 1986 awarded companypensation Rs.21,000/ in respect of lands situated in villages Rampur and Talwal and Rs.10.000/ per kanal in respect of land situated in village Goverdhan Pain with 10 escalation on accordingly paid but feeling dissatisfied therewith, the claimants landowners sought reference under Section of the Act to the arbitrator who by his award dated March 8, 1987 enhanced the companypensation to Rs.60,000/ per kanal in respect of lands in villages Rampur and Talwal and Rs.
In Harbans Singh Shanni Devi V Union of India Civil Appeal Nos 470 71 of 1985 decided on February 11.
The facts in nutshell are that land admeasuring 399 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Villages Rampur, Talwal and Goverdhan Pain was acquired for public purposes, viz.,
This appeal by special leave arises form the judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 passed by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir CIMA No.72 of 1988.
The arbitrator was number appointed for a long period by the Government as enjoined under Section 8 of that Act to determine the market value.
Leave granted.
Ramaswamy, J. Application for impleadment allowed.
