UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DHANWANTI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 21-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
DHANWANTI DEVI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD 
AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Jammu & Kashmir (Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable proper-
ty) Act, 1968: Sections 7 and 8. 
Acquisition of land-'--Solatiwn and interest-No express provision in 
Act for payment of-Held: Owner not entitled to solatium and interest as 
omission by Legislature was deliberate---Owner not entitled to interest in 
D equity if stalltte under which land was acquired expressed contrary inten-
,.... 
tion--Ratio decidendi in Hori Kishan Klwsla's case not in conflict with 
" 
Satinder Singh's case-Nor did the fonner have the effect of ovemtling the 
latter-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.23( 1-A) & 2, 28 and 34-Requisition 
and Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1952, Ss. 7 and 8. 
E 
Acquisition of property-Solatiwn and interest-No express provision 
F 
in the Act for payment of-Held : neither violative of Article 14 nor even 
violative of A1ticle 31 as applicable to Jammu & Kashmir--Legislative omis-
sion to pay solatiwn and interest did not amount to unjust elllichment of 
State--{]njust enrichment-Concept of-explained. 
Acquisition of Land-Compensation-Determination of-Principles 
laid down. 
Constillltion of India, 1950: A11icle 141-Precedent--Constitution of-
Held : essence i11 a decision was its ratio which was bindi11g a11d not eve1y 
G observatio11 found therein-Eve1y judgme11t must be read as applicable to 
p01ticular facts proved-'--A precede11t by long recognitio11 malltred into rule of 
stare decisis. 
The n~spondents' lands were acquired for public purposes, viz., 
defence, by publication of notification under Section 7 of the Jammu & 
H Kashmir (Requisition and Acquisition or Immovable Property) Act, 1968. 
32 
--
... 
U.O.L v. DHANWANTI DEVI 
33 
Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation paid in respect of the said lands A 
the respondents-landowners sought reference under Section 8 of the Act 
to the Arbitrator who enhanced the compensation and also awarded 
solatium and interest. The appeal filed by the appellants in the High Court 
challenging the award of solatium and interest was dismissed. Being 
aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the Act did not 
confer power upon the arbitrator or the court to award solatium and 
interest. 
B 
· On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the Act was a C 
measure of appropriation of private property of citizens though for a public 
purpose; that unless the statute specifically and expressely excluded pay-
ment of solatium and interest the respondents were entitled to the same; 
that denial thereof would amount to unjust enrichment by the State; that 
in the Sta~e of Jammu & Kashmir right to property was still a fundamental 
right; hence deprivation of property without payment of solatium and D 
interest violated respondents' fundamental right to property thereby of· 
fending Artiele 14 of the Constitution; that a landowner was entitled to 
solatium and interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and denial thereof 
under the Act was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; that payment 
of solatium and interest was part of the compensation; and that Hari Kishan 
E 
Khosla's case was in conflict with the ratio decidendi in Satinder Singh 's case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The act of taking possession of immovable properties 
generally implies an agreement to pay interest on its consideration for 
F 
deferred payment. In a court of equity when the seller parts with possession 
of immovable property, the purchaser becomes it owner while the seller 
receives money as consideration in lieu of the property. The seller therefore, 
is entitled to claim interest in place of his retaining possession of the 
property from the date the purchaser takes posession of the property till G 
date of payment. On this premise, claim for interest is sought against the 
State whe'! it exercises its power of eminent domain and acquires the 
property of a citizen for public purpose. This principle was extended in 
equity to recompensate the owner for deprivation of his possession and 
enjoyment thereof in accordance with law. It was, therefore, held in equity 
th?t the owner is entitled to interest on the principal amount of award from H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
the date of taking possession unless the statute

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