Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI OM PRAKASH BHASIN (D)BY L.RS. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/09/1997
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND, M. SRINIVASAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S.Anand
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Srinivasan
Prem Malhotra, Adv. for the appellants
Ravindra Bana, Adv. for the Respondents
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
In 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.
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 compensation of
the acquired land @ Rs. 200/- per marla. The respondent
sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act against the
award of the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned
District Judge, Gurgaon, vide an Award, dated 10.10.1978
allowed compensation @ Rs. 10/- per square yard. The
respondent challenged the award of the District Judge in the
High Court. A learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order
dated 28.1.1981 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 Bench further
raised the compensation to Rs. 15/- per square yard. The
Division Bench also held the 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 @ 5% per annum thereafter till
the date of payment. The Division Bench pronounced the
judgment on March 25, 1985. Hence, this Appeal.
Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the Award of solatium @ 30% under the
provisions of Section 23(1-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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (1994 (5) SCC 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 (II) Vs. State of
Kerala & Ors. (1995 (1) SCC 367).
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 25.3.1985,
the appeal is disposed of. There shall, however, be no
order as to costs.