STATE OF PUNJAB versus AMARJIT SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 08-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 617 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
AMARJIT SINGH AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 8, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.23(1A), 23(2) -Additional 
amount uls. 23(1A) whether awardable on solatium u/s.23(2) 
A 
B 
-
Acquisition of land belonging to the respondents -
C 
Reference court awarding compensation alongwith statutory 
benef/ts u/s.23(1A), 23(2) and 28 - Before executing court, 
claim of respondents for additional amount uls. 23(1 A) not 
only ¢n the market value of the land but also on solatium 
amount - Executing court accepting claim of respondents -
D 
Revision thereagainst dismissed by High Court - On appeal, 
Held:1Additional amount uls.23(1A) is awardable only on the 
market value determined under the first factor of s.23(1) and 
cann@t be calculated on the solatium payable u/s.23(2) - The 
orders of executing court and the High Court that additional E 
amount ul s.23(1A) is payable on solatium are set aside. 
Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub-division, Gadag v. 
MathapathiBasavanne'{VWa (1995) 6 SCC 355, State of Tamil 
Nadu v. L. Krishnan(1996) 1 SCC 250; P. Ram Reddy v . 
. Landi Acquisition Officer (1995)2 SCC 305; Sunder v. Union 
F 
of lnqia (2001) 7 SCC 211; GurpreetSingh v. Union of India 
(2006) 8 sec 457 "".'"·relied on. 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam 
(HUA) 
(2009) 8 SCC 412 - referred to. 
G 
Case. Law Reference: 
(:1995) s sec 355 
relied on 
Para 5 
617 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
(1996) 1 sec 250 
relied on 
Para 5 
(1995) 2 sec 305 
relied on 
Para 5 
(2001) 1 sec 211 
relied on 
Para 5 
(2006) s sec 457 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2009) s sec 412 
referred to 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1494 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.9.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 4382 of 
2008. 
Kuldip Singh, K.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu for the Appellant. 
Arun Nehra, Shobha, Mohinder Pal Thakur, Ridhima Garg 
for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. The question 
raised in this appeal is whether additional amount under 
Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for 
F short) is payable on the solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act 
2. In regard to acquisition of land belonging to the 
respondents, the reference Court by judgment dated 5.3.2001 
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.6,96,000/- per acre 
alongwith statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 
G of the Act. The respondents filed an execution application 
wherein they claimed additional amount of 12% per annum for 
the period 11.11.1993 to 16.6.1994 (that is from the date of 
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the 
award) under Section 23(1A) of the Act, not only on the market 
H value of the land, but also on the solatium amount. The said 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. AMARJIT SINGH AND ANR. 
619 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 
claim was accepted by the Executing Court by order dated 
A 
8.5.2008. The revision filed by the appellant was rejected by 
the High Court on 4.9.2008. The said revisional order of the 
High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave. 
3. To find an answer to the question arising for 
consideration, it is necessary to refer to Section 23 of the Act 
8 
dealing with matters to be 'considered in determining 
compensation. The said provision is extracted below: 
"23. Matters to be considered in determining 
compensation: 
C 
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be 
awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall 
take into consideration-
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the 
D 
publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section 
(1 ); 
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, 
by reason of the taking of any .standing crops or trees which 
E 
may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking 
possession thereof; 
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person 
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession 
F 
of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other 
land; 
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained· by the person 
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession 
of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting 
G 
his other property, movable or immovable, in any other 
manner, or his earnings;

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