LexNADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 516 NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.1058-60 of 2004) NOVEMBER 19, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation - Enhancement of - Acquisition of land situated at village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat in the State of Gujarat for setting up a gas based thermal power project - Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value of D acquired land by land acquisition officer and reference court, claimants sought enhancement of compensation before High Court - High Court determined market value of acquired land @ Rs. 22 per square meter - Appeal by claimants for enhancement of market value to Rs. 33 per square meter - .E Held: Market value determined by High Court was justified and reasonable - The sale instances relied upon by the claimants to substantiate their claim of market value of land at Rs. 33 per square meter were either pertaining to small plots or non-agricultural land or related to land in different village and were not safe guide for determining the market -, F value of acquired land. ss.23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and 34 r- Interest on solatium - Power of executing court - It was held in Constitution Bench decision in Gupreet Singh that if the claim for interest on ; G solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment! decree of reference court or of appellate court, the execution court will necessarily have to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on decision in *Sunder on the ground that the H 516 NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 517 COLLECTOR AND LA execution court cannot go behind the decree - But if the A award of reference court or that of appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had n·ot been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by reference court or appellate court, and merely interest on compen$ation is awarded, then it is B open to the execution court to apply the ratio of *Sunder and hold that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution - In the instant case, the prayer for payment of interest on solatium was specifically made and c was rejected by High Court, however, High Court passed an order of enhancement and the said enhanced amount was ) deposited after the decision in the case of *Sunder - The reason for rejection of the claim for interest on solatium by High Court was that no such interest was payable in terms of D decision in ***Maharau case - The verdict in *Sunder case and in Gurpreet Singh carving out an exception for making .. the claimant entitled to interest on solatium on certain conditions was rendered only subsequently - Respondents, therefore, directed to pay to the claimants-appellants interest E on solatium in terms of decision in **Gurpreet Singh. On 21.2.1986, a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing acquisition of land situated at village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat in the State of Gujarat for setting F up a gas based thermal power project belonging to NTPC. On 29.4.1986, the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act and on 18.06.1986 took over possession of the land. The land acquisition officer determined market value of the land and awarded G compensation @ Rs. 3.50 per square meter for the acquired land. The appellants-claimants filed reference applications. The reference court enhanced the market value of the land and determined compensation @ Rs. 20 H 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A per square meter for the acquired land. The reference court also ordered payment of additional compensation to the complainants with solatium @ 30% p.a. on the said enhanced compensation and also held that the claimants would be entitled to get 12% additional market value from B the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., from 21.02.1986 till 16.06.1986. It further awarded interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year of taking over the possession of land and @ 15% thereafter. The reference court also passed an order expressly recording that the interest c would not be payable on solatium. Still di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.