Union Of India vs Hira Lal And Others
- SCC(1996) 10 SCC 574
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A District Judge hearing an appeal in land acquisition proceedings is not competent to award solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in 1984, and any such award must be set aside even if the Government Advocate has conceded the point, since a concession on a question of law cannot bind the appellant. Where the primary award of compensation by an Arbitrator is upheld on appeal, the court may in its discretion award simple interest on the compensation at a reasonable rate from the date of the Arbitrator's award as a matter of equity and justice, notwithstanding the absence of statutory authority for such interest. A concession made by counsel on a pure question of law is not binding upon the party represented, particularly where such concession is contrary to law and prejudicial to that party's interests.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
We are of opinion that the learned District Judge who heard the appeal filed by the State and the cross- objections filed by the respondents was not competent to award solatium and interest as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act). Accordingly, we delete the award of solatium and also award of interest at the rate and for the periods mentioned in the order of the learned District Judge. We, however, affirm the quantum of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator at Rs. 3.61 lacs (excluding the amount of Rs. 72037.85 paise which already been paid to the respondents in the year 1982). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we direct that the said amount of Rs. 3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent simple from the date of the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, i.e., the date on which the learned Subordinate Judge made the award a rule of the Court. The said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.
We must mention that the concession made by the Government Advocate before the Learned District Judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as Amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. Being a concession on a question of law. It cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. It is surprising how the Government Advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interest of the partie she was representing. We are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the Revision Petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court .
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free