Judgment
As delivered
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 9734 of 2003
PETITIONER:Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors.
RESPONDENT:Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2003
BENCH:S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15758 of 2000]
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
Leave granted.
The case relates to acquisition of land measuring3.37 acres in Mouja Pabiacheura in Kailashahar, Stateof Tripura. The notification under Section 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter, 'the Act'] wasissued on 24th December 1968 and on 13th October,1969, declaration under Section 6 of the Act waspublished. The Land Acquisition Collector made hisaward in October 1974 awarding Rs.12,000/- per acrefor 'nal land' and Rs.9,000/- per acre for 'chara land'.
On 21.10.1974, the appellants filed an application forreference under Section 18 of the Act forenhancement of compensation. On reference, thelearned L.A. Judge passed an award enhancingcompensation, allowing Rs.36,000/- per acre and alsogranted 15% solatium, and interest under Section23(2) of the Act in 1985.
On appeal to the High Court, the claim forenhancement was dismissed. The High Court alsodenied the appellants benefits under Section 23(2) ofthe Act by relying on the decision of this Court in K.S.Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala,AIR 1995 SC 1012.
Before this Court, the main issues are as follows:
(1) Was the High Court justified in not awardingenhanced compensation?
(2) Are the appellants entitled to solatium andinterest @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act?
Compensation payable on a piece of landacquired under the Act is determined by taking intoaccount the market value of the land so acquired. Themost reliable way to determine the market value is torely on the instances of sale of portions of the sameland as has been acquired or adjacent lands madeshortly before or the after the Section 4 notification .
Accordingly, the appellants had produced beforethe High Court a certified copy of an award passed bythe learned L.A. Judge in another acquisitionproceedings. In this case, the land was 150 ft. awayfrom the lands involved in the present proceedings.In those proceedings, the learned L.A. Judge hadawarded Rs.1 lakh per acre as compensation. Thiswas sought to be relied on by the appellants. TheHigh Court chose not to rely on this document as noevidence was led to show that both lands are similarin nature having similar potentiality.
While determining the market value of land, itmust be with reference to a piece of land which iscomparable to the present lands being acquired. Itmust be similar in potentiality and nature. Thedocument which the appellants seek to rely on relatesto land which was acquired for the purpose of Assam-Agartala Road. It was 3 feet higher than the acquiredland. Further, the two lands were not proved to becomparable in nature and potentiality. Therefore, theHigh Court is right in not relying on the said documentand disallowing the claim for enhancement forcompensation.
The second issue relates to the payment ofsolatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Solatium is 'money comfort' quantified by the statuteand given as a conciliatory measure for thecompulsory acquisition of land of the citizen, by awelfare state such as India ". Thus the statutoryamount of solatium is intended to compensate theowner for his disinclination to part with his property.
The main aspect that arises for consideration isthe issue of the rate of solatium. By an amendment in1984, the rate was increased to 30% from the original15% by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act.
This increase was given a limited retrospectivity, inthe sense that, the Amending Act, under Section30(2) provided that the increased solatium isapplicable to those awards passed by the Collector orthe Court between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984. Can itbe said that the present case would be entitled to thisadditional benefit?
The award was made by the L.A. Collector waybefore the said period i.e. in 1974. However, thereference Court passed its award after the said period,i.e. in 1985. Therefore, the issue is whether theamendment would apply to a case pending during theperiod of 2 years from 30.4.1982 to 29.9.1984.
This precise issue has come up for considerationa number of times before this Court. In Union ofIndia v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754, it washeld that the benefit of enhanced solatium wouldapply only in cases where the award by the Collectoror Court is made between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984or appeals against such awards decided by the HighCourts or this Court, whether rendered before24.9.1984 or after that date. This Court found thatthe language of the Section ruled out the applicabilityof the benefit to all pending proceedings.
In Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, AIR1990 SC 981, the issue was whether the amendmentwould apply to an award made subsequent to24.9.1984 even though the acquisition proceedingshad commenced prior to the date. This Court lookedat the intention behind giving retrospective effect tothe amending Section. If the literal interpretation istaken, it was held, it will result in an anomaly. Inorder to avoid it, regard must be had to the purposeof Section 30(2). Consequently, this Court awardedhigher solatium even though the Reference Courtmade the award in 1985.
Again in K.S. Paripoornan's case [supra], thisCourt widened the restricted interpretation given inRaghubir Singh's case. It held that the enhancedsolatium would apply even to a case pending at thetime the Act came into force.
Following this train of thought, the benefit ofenhanced solatium would extend to the present case.During the period between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984,the reference was pending in the Reference Court.
The court's award was passed in 1985. Following theabove interpretation, the appellants are thus entitledto enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest underSection 23(2) of the Act.
The High Court in considering the case underSection 23(1-A) of the Act has committed an error.
The appellants are entitled to solatium under Section23(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reference by theHigh Court to Section 23(1-A) is irrelevant in thepresent case.
The learned counsel for respondents hascontended that solatium is not applicable because theWest Bengal Land Development and Planning Act,1948, under which this present area falls, does notcontemplate it. The provision of solatium ismandatory and cannot be done away with. It hasbeen held in a number of cases that the deprivation ofsolatium by the West Bengal Land Development andPlanning Act is violative of Article 14 and Section 8(2)of the Act is held to be invalid. (See : MonoranjanRouth v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 Cal 487 andRamendranath v. State of W.B., AIR 1975 Cal
325). Therefore, the contention that Section 8(2) ofthe Act excludes compensation by way of solatiumdoes not hold good.
In the light of the above, the compensation @36,000/- per acre as awarded by the L.A. Judge isupheld. The solatium is to be paid @ 30% underSection 23(2) of the Act and an interest @ 9% perannum is also payable under Section 28 of the Act.
The award made by the Reference Court as affirmedby the High Court shall stand modified accordingly andthe appeal is allowed to that extent. No orders as tocosts.
L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R. Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-11-25#25623#104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda#Shakutala Devi#2003-11-03#25624#10906#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 11483 of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh#Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors.#2003-11-21#25625#11483#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9130 of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.#Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.#2003-11-18#25626#9130#CJI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 14178-14184 of 1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.Rs., etc. etc.#State of Uttar Pradesh#2003-11-28#25627#14178-14184#Doraiswamy Raju### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.#Chico Ursula D'Souza#2003-11-20#25628#1968#B.P. Singh### Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey#The State of West Bengal#2003-11-18#25629#199#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 20 of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan#State of Jharkhand#2003-11-28#25630#20#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan#State of Kerala#2003-11-14#25631#278#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 292 of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh.#Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors.#2003-11-18#25632#292#DORAISWAMY RAJU### ###State of Punjab & Anr.#M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.#2003-11-20#25633##CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 331 of 1997#1997#Shriram#State of Madhya Pradesh#2003-11-24#25634#331#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P. & Ors.#Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally & Ors.#2003-11-17#25635#3630-3631#CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 371-372 of 2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-11-27#25636#371-372#S.B. Sinha.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society#Dist. Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.#2003-11-17#25637#4075-4081#CJI.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.#Lalji Tandon (Dead)#2003-11-03#25638#4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka#Puttaraja#2003-11-27#25639#506#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 519-521 of 2003#2003#Goura Venkata Reddy Vs.#State of Andhra Pradesh#2003-11-19#25640#519-521#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors. #State of Kerala #2003-11-17#25641#530-531#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs. #Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr. #2003-11-24#25642#7371#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad, District, Andhra Pradesh #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. #2003-11-21#25643#9205-07#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.) 77-78 of 2003#2003#K. Anbazhagan #The Superintendent of Police & ors.#2003-11-18#25644#77-78#S.N. VARIAVA### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd. #Collector of Central Excise #2003-11-19#25645#7868#CJI###
