J
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
A
v.
SHRI OM PRAKASH BHASIN (D) BY L.RS. AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section (23-JA).
land acquisition-Compensation-Solatium and interest-Entitlement
to-landowner dissatisfied with compensation-Reference-Award by District C
Judge on JO. 10. 1978-Single Judge of High Court vide its order dated
28.01.1981 enhanced compensation from Rs. JO per sq. yard to Rs. 12 per
sq. yard-On appeal Division Bench further raised compensation to Rs. 15
per sq. yard-It also held that landowner was entitled to solatium @ 30%
on the increase of Rs. 3 per square yard, besides interest @ 9% per annum D
for one year from the date of possession of the land and @ I 5% per a'nnum
thereafter till the date of payment-Appeal-Held respondents are not entitled
to grant of any so/atium-The rate of interest shall be confined to 6% per
annum only.
K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [i994] 5 SCC 593 and K.S. E
Paripoornan (fl) v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [ 1995] l SCC 367, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7716 of 1994
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.85 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in L. P.A. No. 581 of 1981.
F
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.
Ravindra Bana for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Jn this appeal which is directed against the judgment and order of the
High Court, dated 25.3.1985, notice issued by this Court was limited to the
question of solatium and interest only.
297
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter
the Act) was issued on 7.10.1971. The Land Acquisition Collector made an
Award giving compe11sation of the acquired land @ Rs. 200 per maria. The
respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act against the award
of the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned District J1udge, Gurgaon,
vide an Award, dated 10.10.1978 allowed compensation @Rs. 10 per square
B yard. The respondent challenged the award of the District Judge in the High
Court. A learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 28.01.1981
allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10 per square
yard to Rs. 12 per square yard. The respondent took the matter further in
appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bell.ch further raised the
C compensation to Rs. 15 per square yard. The Division Bench also held tne
respondent entitled to solatium @ 30% on the increase of Rs. 3 per square
yard, besides interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession
of the land and @ 15% per annum thereafter till the date of payment. The
Division Bench pronounced the judgment on March 25, 1985. Hence, this
D Appeal.
Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Award of solatium@30% under the provisions of Section 23 (I-A) of the Act,
as introduced by the Amending Act, could not have been granted to the
respondent in view of the judgment of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State
E of Kera/a & Ors,. (1994] 5 sec 593. It is also submitted that since the Award
was made prior to 1982 and even the District Judge disposed of the reference
under Section 18 of the Act prior to 1982, interest@ 9% and 15% was not
admissible to the respondent. Reliance in that behalf is placed on K.S.
Paripoornan (JI) v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [1995] 1 SCC 367.
F
The submission made by Mr. Malhotra is well founded. Both the issues
are squarely covered by the judgments, noticed above. We, therefore, accept
this appeal in part and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court,
dated 25.3.1985 and hold that the respondents are not entitled to grant of any
solatium and that the rate of interest shall be confined to 6% per annum only.
With this modification in the judgment and order of the High .Court dated
G 25.3.1985, the appeal is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to
costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex