PATEL JOITARAM KJALIDAS AND ORS. versus SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 13-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PA TEL JOITARAM KJAUDAS AND ORS. 
v. 
SPLLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 23 (IA) and 23 (2)-lnterest on 
solatium-Entitlement to-Denied by reference Court in view of ruling of 
C Supreme Court-Appeal to High Court by Land Acquisition Office1 :iJ··missed-
lnterest not claim before High Court-On the date of judgment of impugned 
order, ruling by Supreme Court permitting interest on solatium-Appeal to 
this Court seeking interest on solatium-Maintainability of appeal questioned 
on the ground that such plea not raised before High Court-Held: Though 
D claimants ought to have raised such claim before High Court, but the appeal 
is maintainable in view of the fact that they could not have raised the claim 
before High Court as the judgment entitling them to such benefit, was passed 
on the date when impugned judgment was passed-Hence claimants are 
entitled to the claim. 
E 
In land acquisition case, Reference Court enhanced the compensation 
to the claimants, but declined award of interest under Sections 23 (lA) and 
23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in view of judgment in Prem Nath Kapoor 
and Anr. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd and Ors., (1996.J 2 
SCC 71. Against enhanced compensation, Land Acquisition Officer filed 
F appeal and the same was dismissed by High Court which is impugned in the 
present appeal. Therein, claimants made no claim in respect of interest on 
solatium. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held that interest is payable 
on solatium. The date of impugned judgment and Constitution Bench judgment 
was the same. Hence the present appeal caliming interest on solatium. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Remission of matter to High Court would only be a formality 
because having regard to the law laid down in Sunder 's case, the High Court 
922 
-
PA TEL JOIT ARAM KJALIDAS v. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
923 
is bound to award the interest on the additional amount payable under Section A 
23 (IA) and solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of the Act Moreover, grant 
of interest on these amounts is consequential and automatic and involves only 
arithmetical calculation and not application of judicial mind or exercise of 
judicial discretion. It is no doubt true that the appellants ought to have made 
such a claim before the High Court, even in the appeals preferred by the State. B 
But in fairness to the appellants it must be conceded that during the pendency 
of the appeals before the High Court the law as laid down in Prem Nath 
Kapoor's case held the field and, therefore, it would have been futile for them 
to claim interest. The claimants could have filed such an application before 
the High Court if the judgment in Sunder was pronounced when the appeals C 
were pending before the High Court. Unfortunately, they could not do so 
because the judgment in Sunder and the impugned judgment in the appeals 
preferred by the State before the High Court were pronounced on the same 
day. Having regard to these facts, peculiar to this case, the appeals preferred 
by the appellants are allowed as a special case in the interest of justice. D 
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to interest on the amounts payable to 
them under Section 23 (IA) and Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 
(930-D-H; 931-A( 
Sunder v. Union of India, (2001 J 7 SCC 211, followed. 
Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar and Ors., (1973( l SCC 109; Periyar 
and Pareekanni Rubbers ltd. v. State of Kera/a, (1991 ( 4 SCC 195; Mir 
Fazeelath Hussain and Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, 
Hyderabad, (1995) 3 SCC 208; Prem Nath Kapoor and Anr. v. National 
Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors., [1996) 2 SCC 71; Yadavrao P. 
Pathade (D) by Lrs. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 570, 
ref erred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5785 of2006. 
E 
F 
From the Final Judgment and order dated 19.9.2001 of the High Court G 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeai Nos. 1320 to 1356, 1358 to 1363 and 
1365 to 1395 of2001. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 5786-5805 of2006. 
H 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Sunil Gupta, Pratap Kalra, Harish J. Jhaveri for the Respondents. 
B 
U.U. Lalit, Ramesh Singh Rutmik Panda, Shivangi, Hemantika Wahi, 
Ashish Verma, K.R. Sasiprabhu, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. SINGH
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.