NARAIN DAS JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) BY L.RS versus AGRA NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, AGRA

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 14-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In the result, the Judgment and decree of the High Court are set ~ 
aside, this appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed. However, under 
the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no orders as to costs. 
G.N. 
Appeal allowed. 
NARAIN DAS JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) BY L.RS. 
: A 
V. 
AGRA NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, AGRA 
FEBRUARY 14, 1991 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
. B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(2)-Solatium-Payment 
_,_ ""( of-Necessity for. 
U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919-Section 36(2)-Acquisition 
~ of land-Payment of Compensation-Whether arises. 
' 
i c;: 
Words and Phrases: 'Solatium'-Meaning of. 
Appellant's land was acquired by the Agra Town Improvement 
~~-Trust under the provisions of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919. 
For the land acquired, the appellant was paid a paltry sum. No solatium 
was awarded as none was awardable under the Act. [391B] 
The appellant sought a reference before the Nagar Mahapalika 
Tribunal. The Tribunal raised the compensation to Rs.1,45,839 and 
also awarded interest at the rate of 4-1/2 percent. 
Still dissatisfied, the appellant moved the High Court in appeal. 
The Nagarpalika also filed a cross appeal against enhancement. The 
High Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and further enhanced 
the compensation by Rs.48,613 and the rate of interest to 6 percent. On 
the amount of Rs.48,613 solatium at the rate of 15% was awarded by the 
~ 
High Court. No solatium was however awarded on the sum of 
. 
Rs.1,45,839 awarded by the Tribunal, on the ground that the appellant 
~::::3'. ,,_had not made a grouse or laid any claim to it in his grounds of appeal. 
The High Court negatived the contention of the appellant that his claim 
to solatium was not based on any demand at his instance but it was 
rather a statutory duty of the Court to grant it. 
Allowing the app~al, this Court, 
HELD: (1) Solatium, as the word goes, is "money comfort" 
quantified by the statute, and given as a conciliatory measure for the 
compulsory acquisition of the land of the citizen, by a welfare state such 
as ours. [392D-E] 
389 
F 
I 
H 
A 
B 
c 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) 1 S.C.R. 
(2) The importance of the award of solatium cannot be under- -' 
mined by any procedural blocades. It follows automatically the market 
I 
value of the land acquired, as a shadow would to a man. It springs up 
spontaneously as a part of the statutory growth on the determination 
.and emergence of market value of the land acquired. That it falls to be 
awarded by the Court "in every case" leaves no discretion :with the 
court in not awarding it in some cases and awarding in others. [393A-B] 
Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1974] 2 S.C.C. 731, refer- y--
red to. 
(3) Solatium in the scheme of section 23(2) of the Land AcquiBition 
Act is part of the compensation and sections 28 and 34 of the said Act pro-
vide for payment of interest on the amount of compensation. [394H-395A] 
--
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. ~ 
1990 S.C. 2192, referred to. 
"r' 
D 
( 4) Solatium being part of compensation must fetch statutory 
E 
F 
interest from the date of dispossession of the land owner till date of 
payment. [395D] 
Dr. Shamlal Narula v. Commissioner of Income Tax Punjab, 
[1964] 7 SCR 668, referred to. 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2327 
of 1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.1975 of the Allahabad 
High Court in First Appeal No. 302 of 1966. 
K.C. Jain and H.K. Puri for the Appellants. 
A.P.S. Chauhan, Roopendra Singh and A.S. Pundir for the 
Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PUNCHHI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against \.._ ~ 
r-. -r 
the common judgment and order of the Devision Bench of the 
Allahabad High Court dated May 23, 1975. 
H 
The appellant herein (since deceased and represented by Legal 
N.D. JAIN.v. AGRA NAGAR MAHAPALIKA [PUNCHHI, J.] 
391 
r Representatives) was the owner of 48613 sq. yards of land in village 
A 
Ghatwasan, Teh. Sadar, Dist. Agra. The same was acquired by the 
Agra Town Improvement Trust under the provisions of the U .P. Town 
Improvement Act, 1919. Notification under section 36(2) of the 
aforesaid Act, which is analogous to section 4 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 was issued on 29-7-1950 and the acquisition proceedings 
culminated by an award of the Land Acquisition Collector, followed 
B 
by taking possession o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.