{"id":134889,"date":"2006-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006"},"modified":"2018-12-26T13:59:41","modified_gmt":"2018-12-26T08:29:41","slug":"mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  723 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nMahesh Lall Seal & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Others\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/09\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n
This civil appeal by grant of special leave appeal
\nseeks to challenge judgment and order dated 6.12.04
\npassed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
\nallowing F.M.A.T. No.151 of 2004 filed by Union of India
\n(respondents herein) challenging the Award of the
\nArbitrator dated 25.10.2000.\n<\/p>\n
Before the High Court the main contention
\nadvanced by Union of India, on whose behest the
\nproperty was acquired, was that the claimants had
\nentered into agreement with the Government on 18.7.75
\nfor sale of properties under Section 8(1)(a) of the
\nRequisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
\nAct, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”) at a
\nfixed price of Rs.18,98,000\/- and in terms of such
\nagreement the full price was paid upon execution of an
\nagreement in Form K on 26.5.93 and, therefore, there
\nwas no question of any dispute being referred to
\narbitration.\n<\/p>\n
The short question which arises for determination
\nin this civil appeal is: whether the impugned Award of the
\nArbitrator dated 25.10.2000 was null and void on
\naccount of absence of referable dispute to the Arbitrator.
\nThe background facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
At all material times, appellants (claimants) were
\nthe joint owners of Dag Nos.613, 614, 617 and 618
\nmeasuring 7.16 acres in area, within Mouza Nainan, P.
\nS. Baranagar, District North 24 Parganas,  being portion
\nof premises No.46,  B.T. Road, Calcutta (hereinafter
\nreferred to as “the acquired property”).  The said acquired
\nproperty was initially requisitioned by Union of India
\nunder Defence of India Act and Rules.  This was on
\n22.4.1942.  On 3.3.1987 the said property was acquired
\nunder the 1952 Act along with other properties when
\nForm J was published.  Up to 31.12.74 the rent of the
\nacquired property was assessed by the L.A. Collector at
\nthe rate of Rs.410\/- per month.  However, this rate of
\nrent was subsequently increased to Rs.55,465\/- per
\nannum.  The claimants were paid rent at the rate of
\nRs.55,465\/- per annum during the period 1.1.75 till
\n2.3.87 when, as stated above, the property stood
\nacquired.  In the meantime, prior to 10.3.87 U.L.C. Act
\n1976 (for short, “the 1976 Act”) came into force.  The
\nclaimants filed an application under Section 27(2) of
\n1976 Act for exemption from vesting excess land and for
\npermission to transfer in favour of Union of India.  The
\nState Government did not finalise the solatium.  The
\nState Government failed to decide as to which portion of
\nthe aforesaid premises was liable for vesting in the State
\nGovernment under the said 1976 Act.  As the requisition
\nof the disputed premises under the 1952 Act was due to
\nexpire on 10.3.87, an order of acquisition was made on
\n3.3.87.  On 27.3.87 Union of India informed the land
\nacquisition officer that the acquiring body had decided to
\nplace Rs.18,98,000\/- for disbursement to the claimants
\nin terms of the agreement dated 18.7.75.  Accordingly,
\nthe land acquisition officer published an award for
\nRs.18,98,000\/- on 8.6.88.  However, the State
\nGovernment on 6.8.88 appointed an Arbitrator vide
\nnotification no.492-Reqn. which was later on cancelled
\non 16.3.90 at the behest of the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
On 26.5.93 ultimately the claimants received the
\nentire amount of Rs.18,98,000\/- under protest.  They
\nfiled writ petition praying for reference under Section
\n18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of
\ncompensation.  On 24.1.96 High Court directed the
\nclaimants to approach the collector.  Accordingly on
\n23.2.96 an application was made for reference before the
\nL.A. Collector under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act.\n<\/p>\n
On 2.4.97 the State Government once again
\nappointed Arbitrator to which Union of India objected.
\nThis objection was filed by Union of India on 25.4.97.  On
\n22.12.97 claimants filed their claim petitions before the
\nArbitrator claiming the compensation in respect of the
\nacquired property at the rate of Rs.3,00,000\/- per kattah.
\nOn 5.1.98 Union of India filed its written objection before
\nthe Arbitrator under which it stated that the fair market
\nvalue of the acquired lands on 3.3.87 would not exceed
\nRs.70,000\/- per kattah.  However, the Union of India
\nmoved the High Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution on 10.12.98 vide Writ Petition No.2503 of
\n1998 seeking cancellation of the appointment of
\nArbitrator.  There was no stay, therefore, the Arbitrator
\nproceeded.  On 6.12.99 the claimants filed their reply
\nand agreed to receive compensation at the rate of
\nRs.70,000\/- per kattah as suggested by Union of India in
\nits objection dated 5.1.98.  By interim order dated
\n15.12.99 learned Single Judge refused to stay the
\narbitration proceedings and directed the proceedings to
\ncontinue subject to the result of the writ petition.  On
\n21.1.2000 an application was moved before the Arbitrator
\nby Union of India, pursuant to the leave granted by the
\nArbitrator, saying that the concession made on 5.1.98 by
\nlearned advocate conceding the rate of Rs.70,000\/- per
\nkattah was without obtaining instructions and, therefore,
\nthe claimants were not entitled to receive compensation
\nat that rate.  Before the Arbitrator, Union of India as well
\nas the L.A. Collector contended that on account of
\nagreement between the parties as far back as on 18.7.75
\nand in view of the claimants’ signing Form K as far back
\nas on 26.5.93, the Arbitrator was not in a position to
\nmake the award under Section 8(3) of the 1952 Act
\nbeyond the amount agreed upon, namely,
\nRs.18,98,000\/-.  This is the main contention all through
\nout by Union of India.  By order dated 18.5.2000 the
\nArbitrator held that the dispute was between the
\nclaimants on one side and Union of India on the other
\nside; that Union of India was represented by the L.A.
\nCollector who had engaged the government pleader to
\nappear in the case and contest the case on behalf of
\nUnion of India and accordingly the government pleader
\nfiled his written objections against the claim on 5.1.98.
\nThe Arbitrator further found that the Vakalatnama filed
\nby the government pleader continued to remain in force.
\nIt was never withdrawn.  That being the position the
\nArbitrator came to the conclusion that the application
\nmade by Union of India on 21.1.2000 withdrawing its
\nearlier statement of the fair value of Rs.70,000\/- per
\nkattah, was not maintainable.  By the said order the
\nArbitrator rejected the objections filed by Union of India
\non 21.1.2000 and came to the conclusion that the
\ndispute regarding compensation did exist and therefore,
\nthe Arbitrator had jurisdiction to try and decide such
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Arbitrator
\ndated 18.5.2000 Union of India preferred one more writ
\npetition in the High Court bearing No.12072 of 2000.
\nThis writ petition was dismissed on 30.8.2000 in limine
\nas misconceived in view of the earlier order of the High
\nCourt dated 15.12.99 directing the Arbitrator to proceed
\nwith the arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
On 28.9.2000 the writ petition filed by Union of
\nIndia seeking cancellation of the appointment of
\nArbitrator was also dismissed by learned Single Judge
\nwho took the view that the claimants had received
\nRs.14,80,000\/- out of Rs.18,98,000\/- by executing
\nagreement in Form K under Rule 9(5) of the
\nRequisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
\nRules 1953 under protest; that various proceedings were
\ninitiated before the L.A. Collector but determination could
\nnot be made under Section 8 of 1952 Act on account of
\nobjections raised by Union of India regarding
\nmaintainability of arbitration proceedings and that the
\nState Government had the power to appoint an arbitrator
\nunder the said 1952 Act.   In this connection, learned
\nSingle Judge observed that written objections were filed
\nby the claimants protesting against the offer of
\nRs.18,98,000\/- on the same day when Form K was
\nexecuted.  Learned Single Judge further observed that
\nthe Form K agreement contained clause (6) which inter
\nalia provided that any dispute or difference arising out of
\nthe subject-matter of the agreement shall be referred to
\nan arbitrator, to be appointed by the government, and
\nthe decision of the Arbitrator shall be conclusive on all
\nthe parties.  The provisions of Arbitration Act 1940 were
\nmade applicable to such arbitration.   Learned Single
\nJudge further found that under the agreement dated
\n18.7.75 the right, title and interest was never conveyed to
\nthe Central Government and on the contrary the
\npremises were acquired on 3.3.87 under the provisions of
\nthe 1952 Act after a lapse of about 12 years and,
\ntherefore, the consideration of Rs.18,98,000\/- had no
\nrelevance in the matter of acquisition on 3.3.87.  In this
\nconnection, learned Single Judge observed that the
\nagreement dated 18.7.75 can by no stretch of
\nimagination constitute a fair amount of compensation
\npayable in respect of acquisition on 3.3.87.  Thus, it was
\nheld that in view of Section 8(1)(b) read with clause (6) of
\nthe agreement in Form K, there existed a dispute as to
\nthe amount of compensation payable for acquisition of
\nthe premises on 3.3.87.  Thus, there was a referable
\ndispute to the arbitrator.  In the circumstances, it was
\nheld that the State Government was competent to
\nappoint an arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952
\nAct.  The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
On 25.10.2000 the Arbitrator announced his award
\nunder which he rejected the claim made by the claimants
\nat the rate of Rs.3,00,000\/- per kattah.  He assessed the
\nmarket value at the rate of Rs.70,000\/- per kattah as on
\n3.3.87.  In his Award it was observed that no witness was
\nexamined on either side for the reason that the claimants
\nhad accepted the rate of compensation offered by Union
\nof India in their written reply dated 5.1.98.  The
\nArbitrator has further held that the claimants have also
\nfiled the report of the Valuer, the sale deed of the
\nadjoining land, the sale instances and accordingly he
\nvalued the premises at the rate of Rs.70,000\/- per
\nkattah.  He also awarded solatium and interest.
\nAccordingly, the amount of Rs.2,65,66,750\/- has been
\nawarded as compensation.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the decision dated 28.9.2000 delivered
\nby learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.2503
\nof 1998 regarding maintainability of the arbitration
\nproceedings, Union of India preferred writ appeal APOT
\nNo.42 of 2001 filed on 7.1.2001.  By decision dated
\n28.8.2001 the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal.
\nThe main contention advanced by Union of India before
\nthe Division Bench was that the claimants had received
\ncompensation amounting to Rs.18,98,000\/- under the
\nagreement in Form K and, therefore, there did not exist
\nany dispute as to the amount of compensation payable
\nfor the same to the owners for which an arbitration was
\nrequired to be entered into in exercise of the power under
\nSection 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act.  This argument was
\nrejected by the Division Bench holding that there was no
\nmaterial on record to show that the claimants had
\ncommunicated their acceptance to the offer made by
\nUnion of India.  On the contrary the Division Bench
\nfound that when Form K came to be executed in 26.5.93,
\nthe amount of Rs.14,80,000\/- was accepted by the
\nclaimants under protest.  The Division Bench further
\nfound that Union of India has never denied receipt of
\nobjections from the claimants at the time of receiving
\ncompensation.  In the circumstances, the Division Bench
\nfound that there existed disputes between the claimants
\nand Union of India regarding the quantum of
\ncompensation and, therefore, it was not open to Union of
\nIndia to challenge the notification issued under Section
\n(8)(1)(b) of the 1952 Act appointing the Arbitrator.  The
\nDivision Bench further found that the agreement dated
\n18.7.75 for Rs.18,98,000\/- was in fact cancelled by the
\nEstates Officer on 15.9.76.  The premises in question
\ncomprised of 8.90 acres of land.  In 1975 the rate was
\naround Rs.5,000\/- per kattah.  The Division Bench found
\nthat the premises are located in a posh area in
\nBarrackpore Trunk Road, Calcutta.  The Division Bench
\nagreed with the view expressed by learned Single Judge
\nthat Form K contained clause (6) which itself stipulated
\nthat any dispute or difference in the matter of
\ndetermination of compensation shall be decided by
\narbitration.  It was observed that in the present case
\nUnion of India made an offer of Rs.18,98,000\/- in 1975
\nunder the agreement dated 18.7.75 when the premises
\nwere under requisition and by such an agreement no
\nright, title or interest was ever transferred by the
\nclaimants to Union of India.  Therefore, it was held that
\nthe notification under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act was
\nvalid.  This was the main aspect to be decided by the
\nDivision Bench.  However, when the writ appeal APOT
\nNo.42 of 2001 came for decision the Award of the
\nArbitrator had come into existence and, therefore, the
\nDivision Bench observed that the question of the validity
\nof the Award, whether by consent or otherwise, was not
\nrequired to be gone into because the only question before
\nthe Division Bench was whether the notification issued
\nunder Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act was with or without
\njurisdiction.  The High Court, therefore, did not go into
\nthe question of the merits of the Award.  The High Court
\ndeclared that the notification under Section 8(1)(b) of the
\n1952 Act was valid in law as there existed a dispute as to
\ncompensation between the claimants and Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the decision dated 28.8.2001, Union of
\nIndia preferred S.L.P.(C).CC2417.\n<\/p>\n
On 18.3.2002 the following order was passed by the
\nSupreme Court in S.L.P.:\n<\/p>\n
 “Learned Additional Solicitor General
\nappearing for the petitioners seeks leave of
\nthe Court to withdraw this petition to pursue
\nother remedies that may be permissible
\nunder the law.  The Special Leave Petition is
\ndismissed as withdrawn.”\n<\/p>\n
Union of India thereafter preferred an application
\nfor review before a Division Bench of the High Court
\nagainst the judgment delivered on 28.8.2001 by the
\nearlier Division Bench of the High Court.  The review
\napplication was dismissed on 14.1.2003 with an
\nobservation that Union of India was free to challenge the
\nAward in question in accordance with law.  It was made
\nclear that in its decision dated 28.8.2001 the earlier
\nDivision Bench has not gone into the merits of the
\nAward.\n<\/p>\n
Since the claimants did not receive compensation,
\non 11.11.2003 the claimants moved the High Court vide
\nWrit Petition No.3001 of 2003 for realization of the
\ncompensation as per the Award.  They sought execution
\nof the Judgment of the High Court.  At that stage Union
\nof India filed an appeal bearing F.M.A.T. No.151 of 2004
\nunder Section 11 of the 1952 Act against the Award of
\nthe Arbitrator dated 25.10.2000.\n<\/p>\n
By impugned judgment dated 6.12.2004 the
\nDivision Bench allowed the appeal preferred by Union of
\nIndia.  In appeal, Union of India once again contended
\nthat the property in question was acquired on the basis
\nof the agreement dated 18.7.75 under which
\ncompensation was ultimately received at the rate of
\nRs.18,98,000\/- when Form K executed and, therefore,
\nthere was no dispute in existence to be referred to
\narbitration.  It was urged that the impugned Award was
\npassed by the Arbitrator on the basis of the concession
\nmade vide objections dated 5.1.98 and without noticing
\nthe fact that the said objection was withdrawn by Union
\nof India on 21.1.2000 when fresh objections were filed
\nsaying that the claimants were not entitled to
\ncompensation exceeding Rs.18,98,000\/-.  It was also
\nurged on behalf of Union of India that claimants were not
\nentitled to solatium and interest as awarded by the
\nArbitrator.  On behalf of the claimants it was once again
\nsubmitted that the agreement dated 18.7.75 offering the
\nprice of Rs.18,98,000\/- cannot constitute compensation
\nfor acquisition which took place after 12 years on 3.3.87
\nand that reference of such dispute to arbitration cannot
\nbe disputed as illegal.  It was urged that the balance
\namount of Rs.14,80,000\/- received on 26.5.93 when
\nForm K was signed, have been received under protest
\nand, therefore, the dispute continued to exist.  The
\nclaimants also placed reliance on the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench dated 28.8.2001 in writ appeal APOT
\nNo.42 of 2001 in support of their contention that the
\nnotification under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act
\nappointing an arbitrator was legal, valid and in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
On the above contentions the Division Bench in the
\nsecond round of litigation held that there was no res
\njudicata because the findings given by the earlier Division
\nBench in its decision dated 28.8.2001 were tentative in
\nnature.  Accordingly in the second round the Division
\nBench records a finding, contrary to the decision of the
\nDivision Bench in the first round, that at the time of
\nreceiving the balance amount of Rs.14,80,000\/- and at
\nthe time of signing of Form K on 26.5.93 there did not
\nexist any objection from the claimants.  In this
\nconnection the Division Bench observed that the
\nclaimants had received Rs.14,80,000\/- on execution of
\nForm K agreement on 26.5.93 but there was no
\nsimultaneous objection from the claimants who in fact
\nobjected to the amount only after receiving the balance
\namount of Rs.14,80,000\/- and, therefore, according to
\nthe Division Bench it cannot be said that the claimants
\nreceived compensation under protest.  One fails to
\nunderstand how in the second round of litigation the
\nsubsequent Division Bench gave contrary view on the
\nsame point.  Realising this difficulty, the subsequent
\nDivision Bench holds that the findings given on the above
\nquestion by the Division Bench in the earlier round were
\ntentative findings and since they were tentative findings
\nthe subsequent Division Bench once again goes into the
\nsame question and holds that the claimants received the
\ncompensation amounting to Rs. 18,98,000\/- without any
\nprotest and consequently the arbitration proceedings
\nwere without jurisdiction.  On the merits of the Award
\nthe subsequent Division Bench however holds that on
\n5.1.98 written objections were filed on behalf of Union of
\nIndia under which it was conceded that the rate of the
\nfair market value was Rs.70,000\/- per kattah and not
\nRs.3,00,000\/- per kattah as contended by the claimants.
\nHowever, these written objections dated 5.1.98 were
\nsubsequently withdrawn on 21.1.200 and, therefore, the
\nArbitrator erred in fixing compensation at the rate of
\nRs.70,000\/- per kattah.  The subsequent Division Bench
\nobserved that there was no material on record for
\nassessing valuation, particularly, when no evidence was
\ntaken by the Arbitrator.  In the circumstances, the
\nsubsequent Division Bench has set aside the Award
\ndated 25.10.2000.  Hence this civil appeal by the
\nclaimants.\n<\/p>\n
The short question which arises for determination
\nis: whether the subsequent Division Bench was right in
\nholding that the findings given by the earlier Division
\nBench on the maintainability of the arbitration
\nproceedings, were tentative in nature and, therefore, not
\nbinding on the subsequent Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of Union of India it was vehemently urged
\nthat no interference is called for in the present case.  It
\nwas contended on behalf of Union of India that this Court
\nhad granted liberty to Union of India vide its order dated
\n18.3.2002 to pursue other remedies permissible under
\nlaw.  It was urged that even the Division Bench of the
\nCalcutta High Court clarified the position vide order
\ndated 14.1.2003 saying that Union of India was free to
\nchallenge the Award and, therefore, according to Union of
\nIndia, it was open to it to raise the same contentions
\nregarding maintainability of arbitration proceedings once
\nagain in the appeal filed before the Division Bench
\nagainst the Award under Section 11 of the 1952 Act.  In
\nthis connection, it was submitted by Ld. Additional
\nSolicitor General that the findings of the earlier Division
\nbench dated 28.8.2001 were tentative in nature and,
\ntherefore, the subsequent Division Bench was right in
\nholding, vide impugned judgment, that the arbitration
\nproceedings were not maintainable as the acquisition had
\ntaken place under the agreement dated 18.7.75.
\nConsequently, according to Union of India, the Award
\nhas been rightly set aside by the Division Bench vide
\nimpugned judgment dated 6.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n
We find merit in this civil appeal.  There is a
\ndifference between the validity of the notification issued
\nunder Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act on one hand and
\nthe validity of the Award on merits announced by the
\nArbitrator on 25.10.2000 on the other.  In the earlier
\nround of litigation the question which arose for
\ndetermination before the High Court was: whether the
\nnotification issued under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act
\nappointing an arbitrator was valid in law.  In that
\nlitigation there was no question of deciding on merits the
\nvalidity of the Award dated 25.10.2000.  A concurrent
\nfinding was recorded by learned Single Judge and by the
\nDivision Bench upholding the validity of the notification
\nunder Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act.  The notification
\nwas upheld.  By no stretch of imagination one can say
\nthat the concurrent findings given were tentative in
\nnature.  In this connection, it is important to note that
\nthe premises in question were acquired on 3.3.87 which
\nis 12 years after the agreement dated 18.7.75.  Under the
\nscheme of the 1952 Act as in the case of Land Acquisition
\nAct fair market value has to be determined as on the date
\nof acquisition.  In this case acquisition had taken place
\non 3.3.87.  If the contention of Union of India is to be
\naccepted it would amount to pegging of the price which is
\nnot permissible under the law of acquisition.  The
\nDivision Bench in the earlier round had given a finding
\nthat the premises in question are located in a posh area.
\nIn the earlier round a concurrent finding was given by
\nthe High Court, both by  learned Single Judge and by the
\nDivision Bench, that the claimants had received
\ncompensation under protest.  In the circumstances, it
\ncannot be said by the subsequent Division Bench that
\nthe earlier findings were tentative.  There is one more fact
\nwhich is required to be noted.  Before the Arbitrator the
\nclaimants had asked for enhancement of compensation
\nat the rate of Rs.3,00,000\/- per kattah.  In reply, on
\n5.1.98 Union of India stated that the fair rate was
\nRs.70,000\/- per kattah.  On 21.1.2000 an affidavit is
\nfiled by Union of India before the Arbitrator saying that
\nthe advocate had no authority to concede the rate at
\nRs.70,000\/- per kattah.  By decision dated 18.5.2000 the
\nobjections filed by Union of India dated 21.1.2000 were
\nrejected.  The decision of the Arbitrator was challenged in
\na writ petition C.O.No.12072 of 2000.  This writ petition
\nwas also dismissed by the High Court on 30.8.2000 and,
\ntherefore, it is not open to Union of India now to say that
\nRs.70,000\/- per kattah was not the fair rate.  This issue
\nwas also, therefore, concluded.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly, the most important point to be noted is that
\nbefore the Arbitrator the claimants had submitted a
\nvaluation report under which the valuer has relied upon
\nsale instances and had calculated the fair market value
\nof the acquired property at Rs.73,900\/- per kattah [SEE:
\nValuation report dated 20.12.96 at page 97 of Volume I
\nfiled in the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No.151 of
\n2004  Part I).  In fact, even the Arbitrator in the
\nimpugned Award has referred to the report of the expert
\nvaluer and also to the sale instance dated 18.7.86 and,
\ntherefore, it cannot be said that the impugned Award is
\nbased only on the concession made by Union of India
\nvide its objections dated 5.1.98.\n<\/p>\n
Before concluding we may mention that Shri
\nBhaskar Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing on
\nbehalf of the claimants, has stated that the claimants will
\nnot press their claim for solatium.  In the circumstances,
\nwe are not required to examine the question as to
\nwhether the claimants were entitled to solatium under
\nprovisions of the 1952 Act.  However, we are of the view
\nthat the interest awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of
\n15% per annum from the date of acquisition till payment
\nis on the higher side and accordingly we direct payment
\nof interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 15%
\nper annum.\n<\/p>\n
For the above stated reasons, we find merit in the
\ncivil appeal and accordingly we set aside the impugned
\njudgment dated 6.12.2004 delivered by the Division
\nBench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No.151 of
\n2004 and accordingly we direct payment of compensation
\nto the claimants at the rate of Rs.70,000\/- per kattah in
\nrespect of Danga and Bastu land and at the rate of
\nRs.35,000\/- per kattah for the pond land with interest at
\nthe rate of 9% per annum from the date of acquisition till
\npayment as ordered by the Arbitrator less amounts paid
\nand received by the claimants till today.  We may clarify
\nthat in the Award the Arbitrator granted interest on the
\naggregate amount of land value + solatium for the period
\nof one year from the date of acquisition on the basis that
\nUnion of India shall pay the requisite amount within
\nthree months from the date of the Award.  However,
\nUnion of India unnecessarily litigated on unstatable
\npoints, as stated above, and in the process interest
\ncontinued to accrue and, therefore, we direct Union of
\nIndia to pay compensation that is land value at the two
\nabove-mentioned rates of Rs.70,000\/- per kattah in
\nrespect of Danga and Bastu land and Rs.35,000\/- per
\nkattah for the pond land without solatium with interest
\nat the rate of 9% per annum from the date of acquisition
\ntill payment, less the amount which has already been
\npaid till date.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the civil appeal is partly allowed with
\nno order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 Author: Kapadia Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 723 of 2006 PETITIONER: Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors. RESPONDENT: Union of India & Others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/09\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-26T08:29:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T08:29:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4142,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\",\"name\":\"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T08:29:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-26T08:29:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T08:29:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006"},"wordCount":4142,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006","name":"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T08:29:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahesh-lall-seal-ors-vs-union-of-india-others-on-1-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahesh Lall Seal & Ors vs Union Of India & Others on 1 September, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}