KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI ORAi DISTRICT,
A
JALAUN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
v.
AMAR SINGH AND ANR.
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PA'ITANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 26 and 28-Compensation Award passed by C
the Reference Cowt-On appeal High Court awarding additional amount,
enhancing solatium and also awarding interest-Held : High Court was in
en-or in granting the additional amounts to which the claimants not en-
titled-17iey are entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation
from date of taking of possession of the land till date of deposit and solatiwn
at 15% on the enhanced compensation.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13090 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.A. No. 3684/90 in P.A. No. 4 of 1981.
E
O.P. Rana, T. Mahipal ~nd Pradeep Misra for the Appellant.
V.K.. Choudhary and A.S. Pundir for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
Though the notice was issued, neither the acknowledgment nor the
unserved cover has been received from the second respondent. The first
F
respondent is appearing through the counsel.
G
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the first
respondent. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was published on March 1, 1973. The award of the Collector was
made on 15th October, 1975. On reference under Section 18, the Civil
Court enhanced the compensation on January 30, 1975. On July 9, 1981, H
-
629
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
the appeal filed by the State was dismissed confirming the compensation
@ Rs. 110,000 per acre. Subsequently, the claimant's appeal was disposed
of on August 24, 1987 with enhancement of the solatium and interest and
also the additional amount under Section 23(2), proviso to Section 28 and
Section 23(1-A) respectively. In March 1990, application under Section
B 151, CPC filed by the appellant for correction of the award granted by 'the
High Court was dismissed on May, 1994. Th~s, this appeal by special leave.
It is now well settled legal position that when the award itself under
Section 26 was passed by the reference Court on January 10, 1979, the High
Court was obviously in error in awarding the additional amount under the
C Amendment Act 68 of 1984 as per Section 23(2), proviso to Section 28 and
Section 23(1-A) enhancing solatium to 30%, interest @ 9% for one year
and @ 15% thereafter from the date of taking possession on enhanced
compensation and additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of
the notification till the date of taking possession or award, whichever is
earlier. In these circumstances, the High Court was obviously in error in
D granting those additional amounts. When an application under Section
151, CPC was filed, the High Court ought to have corrected its misrake,
but instead it dismissed it. Under these circumstances, we hold that the
claimants are not entitled to the aforesaid benefits; instead, they are
entitled to the interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date
E of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit and solatium at 15%
on the enhanced compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but without' costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
F
•
..
Lex