Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SH. S. P. SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D ER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made
on March 22, 1996 in the First Appeal No. 129/95. This
appeal and also the First Appeal No.128/95 before the High
Court are commonly disposed of since the acquisition was
common. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published
on September 11, 1982 for acquiring 192.82 acres. The award
came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on March
3, 1984 in Award No.44 in respect of 137.52 acres of the
land and another award dated September 21, 1986 in award
No.44/1 in respect of 33 acres of land. On appeal, the
Additional District Judge by his another award dated
December 3, 1994 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre.
On appeal, the High Court ha reduced the compensation to Rs.
1,12,500/- per acre. It has also awarded separate
compensation for the building, factory and machinery. Thus
this appeal by special leave.
In this appeal, Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the
appellant, has contended that in view of the judgment in the
case of Prem Nath Kapoor v. National Fertilizer Corporation
[(1996) 2 SCC 71] wherein it was held that the claimants are
not entitled to solatium on additional amount awarded under
Section 23(1A) of the Act, they are also not entitled to
interest on the solatium. The learned counsel for the
respondent, in fairness, has stated that as per the decree
of the High Court, thee was no specific mention that the
claimants are entitled to the above reliefs. It mentions
only that the statutory benefits would be granted as per
law. Under these circumstances, it is clarified that the
claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and on
additional amount awarded under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No
costs.