LexM/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 1 M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. A v. STATE OF KERALA (Civil Appeal Nos. 7034-7037 of2015) SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894- ss. 23(1A), 28, 34- Land acquisition - Claim of solatium for the enhanced amount of c compensation and interest thereof- Interest on solatium - Date of payment of solatium -Acquisition of rubber estate - Award passed for solatium and interest on compensation including solatium - As regards enhanced compensation, High Court upheld that solatium is payable by State D Government for the enhanced compensation awarded for the market value of the entire land, thus, it provided solatium for that porlion of land value based on the capitalization method of yielding rubber trees and directed the respondents to compute balance amount payable under the decree - E However, the High Courl awarded the interest on solatium w.e.f. 19.09.2001, the date of judgment delivered by Constitution Bench in Sunde r's case instead offrom the date of their entitlement under the provisions of ss. 23(1 A) and 28 - On appeal, held: In view of difference of opinion between F two judges, matter referred to larger Bench. Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court PER V. GOPALA GOWDA.J: G HELD: 1.1 From the interpretation of provisions of Sections 11, 15, 23, 24 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is clear that the amount of compensation in the Collector's Award includes not only the amount H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A determined under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but also the additional amount of solatium as stipulated under Section 23(2) and amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act. [Para 21] [15-G-H; 16-A] B 1.2 The judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder's case is the binding precedent on the question of payment of legislative statutory interest payable on solatium under Sections 23(1A), 28 and 34 of the Act which cannot be deprived to C the claimant/decree holde·r by the court. As the said judgment is binding upon the State Government it cannot contend that it is not liable from the date as provided under the provisions of the Act. [Para 25] [19-G-H; 20-A] D 1.3 The Constitution Bench judgment in Sunder's case is aptly applicable to the fact situation of the instant case for the reason that the enhanced compensation includes the solatium @30% as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, the claimant/decree holder is E entitled for the interest on the solatium component which is part of the compensation payable by the State government to the claimant. The Execution Court held that the claimant/decree holder company is entitled to claim solatium only in respect of the enhanced F compensation provided for the land alone which has been separately fixed, but, not in respect of that portion of market value of the land based on capitalization method of the yielding rubber trees for the planted area which was separately fixed by the Reference C::ourt in G its Award. The High Court was right in holding that the claimant is entitled for the interest not only in respect of the land but also with respect to the trees standing on the land of which the market value is determined by the H Reference Court. However, it awarded the interest on M/S PERIYAR & PJ\REEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. v. STATE 3 er KERALA solatium from 19.09.2001 and not for the prior period by A placing reliance on Gurpreet Singh case. [Para 26] [20- B-F] 1.4 From the facts of the instant case and in the light of law laid down on the question of payment of B interest on solatium by the Constitution Bench in Sunder's case, it is amply clear that the said case is the binding precedent. As far as Gurpreet Singh's case is concerned, the question which arose for its consideration was only with regard to the rule of C appropriation in execution of the Award passed under the provisions of the Act. While answering the said question of law after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, it incidentally made some observation with regard to the payment of interest on solatium which is D only an obiter but not the binding precedent as that question did not fall for consideration before the Constitution Bench. For the reason that the binding precedent laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder's case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.