RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs PUNEET KUMAR MITTAL
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
2026:UHC:4324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
First Appeal No.206 of 2025
Praveen Kumar and Another …. Appellants
Versus
Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd and another ……… Respondents
With
First Appeal No.181 of 2025
Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd …. Appellant
Versus
Puneet Kumar Mittal and another ……… Respondents
With
First Appeal No.182 of 2025
Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd …. Appellant
Versus
Praveen Kumar Agrawal and others ……… Respondents
With
First Appeal No.207 of 2025
Puneet Kumar Mittal …. Appellants
Versus
Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd and another ……… Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants in FA
No.206 of 2025 and FA No.207 of 2025.
Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for appellant/RVNL in FA
1
2026:UHC:4324
No.181 of 2025 and FA No.182 of 2025.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
has been
First Appeal No.181 of 2025
preferred against the award dated 03.06.2025 passed by
the Ld. Presiding Officer/District Judge, Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority
(hereinafter referred to as “LARRA”), Pauri Garhwal in
Misc. Case No. 105/2023 (Reference Case No. 24/2018),
“Puneet Kumar Mittal Vs. Chief Project Manager and
another”, whereby the Review Application filed by the
respondent was allowed, and the appellant was directed
to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,809/- instead of
Rs. 7,473/- per sq. mtr., along with 100% solatium
amounting to Rs. 32,79,780/- and other consequential
benefits, together with interest @ 12% per annum (simple
interest) w.e.f. 11.03.2016 till the date of actual payment
and thus seeking setting-aside of award dated
03.06.2025.
2. has been
First Appeal No.206 of 2025
preferred against the award dated 03.06.2025 passed by
the Ld. Presiding Officer/District Judge, Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority
2
2026:UHC:4324
(LARRA), Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Case No. 106/2023
(Reference Case No. 27/2018), “Om Prakash Agrawal Vs.
Chief Project Manager and another”, whereby the Review
Application filed by the respondent was not allowed in
toto, and the respondent was directed to pay
compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,809/- instead of Rs.
7,473/- per sq. mtr., along with interest @ 12% per
annum (simple interest) w.e.f. 11.03.2016 till the date of
actual payment and thus seeking modification of
award/enhancement of interest from 12% to 15%.
3. First Appeal No.182 of 2025 has been
preferred against the award dated 03.06.2025 passed by
the Ld. Presiding Officer/District Judge, Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority
(LARRA), Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Case No. 106/2023
(Reference Case No. 27/2018), “Om Prakash Agrwal Vs.
Chief Project Manager and another”, whereby the Review
Application filed by the appellant was allowed, and the
appellant was directed to pay compensation at the rate of
Rs. 7,809/- instead of Rs. 7,473/- per sq. mtr., and other
consequential benefits, together with interest @ 12% per
annum (simple interest) w.e.f. 11.03.2016 till the date of
actual payment and thus seeking setting-aside of the
award dated 03.06.2025.
3
2026:UHC:4324
4. First Appeal No.207 of 2025 has been
preferred against the compensation award dated
03.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer/District
Judge, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement
Authority (LARRA), Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Case
No.105/2023 (Reference Case No. 24/2018), “Puneet
Kumar Mittal Vs. Chief Project Manager and another”,
whereby the Review Application filed by the respondents
was not allowed in toto, and the respondent was directed
to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,809/- instead of
Rs. 7,473/- per sq. mtr., along with interest @ 12% per
annum (simple interest) w.e.f. 11.03.2016 till the date of
actual payment and thus seeking modification of
award/enhancement of interest from 12% to 15%.
5. Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being heard
and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity,
facts of First Appeal No.181 of 2025 alone are being
considered.
6. The facts of the case, in brief, are being
narrated hereinafter. Land situated in Village Purana
Srinagar, Pargana Behelgarh Tehsil Srinagar, District
Pauri Garhwal, was acquired for the purpose of the
Rishikesh–Karnaprayag Railway Line Project. The project
4
2026:UHC:4324
related to the construction of a 126 km stretch of a new
broad gauge railway line between Rishikesh and
Karnaprayag, for which an area measuring 0.395
hectares belonging to the claimants and other
landowners was acquired. The acquiring body was Rail
Vikas Nigam Ltd., Rishikesh (hereinafter referred to as
RVNL). In the present case, the preliminary notification
under Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) was issued on 11.03.2016. The Social Impact
Assessment Study was notified on 27.04.2016 and was
published in the newspapers on 29.04.2016 and
30.04.2016. The public hearing was held on 15.10.2016,
and the Social Impact Assessment Report was evaluated
by the Expert Group on 22.11.2016.
7. Thereafter, the notification under Section 11 of
the Act was made on 23.11.2016 and was published in
newspapers on 01.12.2016 and 02.12.2016. The
preliminary survey under Section 12 of the Act was
conducted between 15.03.2017 and 23.03.2017. The
Draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme was
published on 16.06.2017. Draft Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme was reviewed on 15.07.2017, and
the approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme
5
2026:UHC:4324
was made public on 19.07.2017. Subsequently, the
notification under Section 19 of the Act was made on
09.11.2017 and published in the newspapers on
10.12.2017. The notices under Section 21 of the Act were
issued on 01.02.2018. The award was declared by the
Collector on 27.04.2018.
8. Being dissatisfied with the award declared by
the Collector, the landowners sought a reference under
Section 64 of the Act before the Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA)/
District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. The said reference was
registered as Reference No. 24 of 2018 before the LARRA,
wherein an award was passed on 30.01.2020. By the said
award, the value of the land was determined at Rs.
7,473/- per square metre, and double thereof, i.e. Rs.
14,946/- per square metre, was awarded to the
landowners/claimants along with 12% interest. Aggrieved
against the award dated 30.01.2020, RVNL preferred
First Appeal No. 95 of 2020 before this Court. However,
the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on
15.12.2021 with liberty to file a fresh appeal.
9. The claimant/landowners were not satisfied
with the award dated 30.01.2020 passed by the LARRA
and hence sought a review of the said order under the
6
2026:UHC:4324
provisions of Section 60(1)(f) of the Act. In the review
application, the main ground of review was that the
landowners/claimants had not received solatium
amounting to 100% of the market value as contemplated
under Section 69(3) of the Act. The other contention
raised by the claimants/landowners was that they were
entitled to interest. However, since the compensation
itself was paid with delay, they were entitled to interest at
the rate of 15%. In the review application, it was also
pointed out that there was an arithmetical error in the
calculation of the average value of the exemplar sale
deed, and the correct value would be Rs.7,862/- instead
of Rs.7,473/-.
10. The review application was numbered as Misc.
Civil Case No. 105 of 2023 (Reference No. 24 of 2018),
Puneet Kumar Mittal vs. Chief Project Manager, RVNL and
Another . Objections to the review application were invited
and the same were filed by the RVNL, wherein it was
contended that the grounds taken in the review
application were erroneous and that the review
application deserved to be dismissed. Ultimately, after
hearing the parties on the review application, the LARRA,
by award dated 3rd June 2025, reviewed its earlier award
dated 30.01.2020 and found that there was an
arithmetical error in the calculation. Therefore, instead of
7
2026:UHC:4324
Rs. 7,473/- per sq. metre as the market value, it
determined the correct market value to be Rs. 7,809/-
per square metre, and the double thereof to be Rs.
15,618/- per square metre. On that basis, the
compensation of the acquired land was determined to be
Rs. 32,79,780/-. On the total compensation, the
claimants/landowners were also held entitled to 100%
solatium, i.e., Rs. 32,79,780/-. The review
applicants/landowners were further held entitled to 12%
simple interest from 11.03.2016.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
03.06.2025, the first appeal has been preferred.
12. Assailing the aforesaid award (review order)
dated 03.06.2025, learned counsel for the
RVNL/appellant would submit that the grant of solatium,
that too at the stage of review, was erroneous inasmuch
as the landowners/claimants were not entitled to any
solatium amount under the provisions of Sections 26 and
30 read with the First Schedule of the Act. Learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the
claimants/landowners were not entitled to any solatium
inasmuch as they had already received double the
amount of the market value. Hence, there was no
question of awarding any solatium.
8
2026:UHC:4324
13. Learned counsel for the appellant would refer
to Section 26(2) of the Act, which states that the market
value is to be calculated as per sub-section (1) and shall
be multiplied by a factor specified in the First Schedule.
Referring to the First Schedule, learned counsel would
submit that since double the amount of the market value
had already been granted, no question of solatium would
arise. Learned counsel for the appellant would further
submit that the scope of review is very limited and, as per
the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, review is
permissible only in cases where there is an error
apparent on the face of the record. According to learned
counsel, grant under any additional head of
compensation under the Act would tantamount to an
appeal in the garb of review.
14. On the aspect of review, learned counsel for
the appellant would draw the attention of the Court to
the provisions of Section 72 and has particularly drawn
the attention of the Court to the proviso to Section 72 of
the Act. Section 72 of the Act is extracted hereunder for
ready reference:
“72. Collector may be directed to pay interest
on excess compensation .–If the sum, which in the
opinion of the Authority concerned, the Collector
ought to have awarded as compensation is in
excess of the sum which the Collector did award as
9
2026:UHC:4324
compensation, the award of the Authority
concerned may direct that the Collector shall pay
interest on such excess at the rate of nine per cent
per annum from the date on which he took
possession of the land to the date of payment of
such excess into Authority:
Provided that the award of the Authority
concerned may also direct that where such excess
or any part thereof is paid to the Authority after the
date or expiry of a period of one year from the date
on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of
fifteen per cent per annum shall be payable from
the date of expiry of the said period of one year on
the amount of such excess or part thereof which
has not been paid into Authority before the date of
such expiry.”
15. With reference to Section 72 of the Act, learned
counsel for the appellant would contend that the interest
is payable from the relevant date as contemplated under
the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn
the attention of this Court to Section 69(2) of the Act,
wherein it has been submitted that, in addition to the
market value of the land, interest at the rate of 12% is
payable from the date of the award or from the date of
taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Learned counsel submits that there has been no delay on
the part of the appellant in depositing and remitting the
awarded amount; hence, there is no question of payment
of interest at the rate beyond 12%, what has already been
10
2026:UHC:4324
granted. Hence, the appeals preferred by the
claimants/landowners, to the extent they seek
enhancement of the interest component from 12% to
15%, are misconceived, and therefore they are not
entitled to such enhancement. Referring to the proviso to
Section 72, learned counsel would submit that the
question of payment of interest at the rate of 15% would
arise only in cases where the excess amount or any part
thereof is paid to the authority after the expiry of one
year from the date possession is taken. However, in the
present case, this question does not arise, as the
compensation amount was remitted at the earliest and
there was no delay on the part of the appellant.
Therefore, there is no question regarding entitlement to
15% interest, as claimed in First Appeal Nos. 206 and
207 of 2025. Learned counsel for the appellants would
further submit that the Collector has already granted
interest at the rate of 12%; hence, there is no occasion
for the claimants/landowners to claim interest at the rate
of 15%.
Per contra
16. , learned counsel for the
claimants/landowners, who are also the appellants in
First Appeal Nos. 206 and 207 of 2025, would draw the
attention of the Court to the operative portion of the
order dated 30.01.2020, wherein the LARRA, had granted
11
2026:UHC:4324
compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,473/- per square metre
and double thereof at the rate of Rs. 14,946/- per square
metre, and had also awarded interest at the rate of 12%.
Learned counsel states that, so far as the double market
value as per the First Schedule and the 12% interest
under Section 30(3) are concerned, there is no
controversy. Learned counsel for the
appellants/landowners/claimants would draw the
attention of the Court to Section 30(2) of the Act and has
also invited the attention of the Court to Section 69(3) of
the Act, as well as Serial No. 5 of the First Schedule. It is
thus submitted that the review application had to be filed
under the provisions of Section 60(1)(f) of the Act, since
the LARRA had omitted to grant the solatium amount as
mandated under Section 30 and Section 69(3) of the Act.
Since it was an error apparent on the face of the record
and the mandate was specifically contained in the Act,
the landowners/claimants had rightly invoked Section
60(1)(f) and sought review of the award dated 30th
January, 2020. Learned counsel for the
claimants/landowners would further submit that the
proviso to Section 72 of the Act provides for interest at
the rate of 15% in the event of delay in payment, and in
the present case, since there was delay, Section 72 would
come into play and the landowners/claimants were
12
2026:UHC:4324
entitled to interest at the rate of 15% on the
compensation amount. Learned counsel for the
claimants/landowners also drew the attention of the
Court to Section 30(1) of the Act and submitted that the
Collector, after determining the compensation and
arriving at the final award, is also required to award a
solatium amount equal to 100% of the compensation
amount. He thus contends that Section 30(1) has to be
read along with Section 69(3) of the Act, and that the
solatium amount is a distinct component apart from the
market value. Hence, the LARRA committed a manifest
error apparent on the face of record by ignoring the
provisions of Sections 30 and 69(3), as well as the First
Schedule, wherein all the components required to be
granted are specifically mentioned. Since the solatium
amount was not granted by the LARRA, the claimants
were constrained to bring the said anomaly and mistake,
which was writ large on the face of record, to the notice of
the authority by means of the review application.
17. Thus, the controversy that has to be
determined in these first appeals is whether the solatium
amount would be in addition to the compensation
amount as contemplated under Sections 26 and 30 of the
Act and whether the LARRA had the jurisdiction to review
13
2026:UHC:4324
the order dated 30.01.2020 in view of provisions of
section 60(1)(f) of the Act.
18. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the following
points for determination arise in the first appeal as
follows:-
“(i) Whether the solatium amount would be in
addition to the compensation as contemplated
under Sections 26 and 30 of the Act?
(ii) Whether the LARRA could have reviewed
the final judgment and order dated 30.01.2020
under Section 60(1)(f) of the Act?
(iii) Whether the LARRA was justified in
granting the interest at the rate of 12% and not
15% as has been claimed by the landowners?”
Point for Determination No.(i)-
To answer the Point for Determination No.(i),
reference needs to be made to Section 26 of the Act,
which is being reproduced hereunder:-
“26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.- (1) The
Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and
determining the market value of the land, namely:-
14
2026:UHC:4324
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or
agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the
land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in
the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under
sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for
private companies or for public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value
shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under
Section 11.
Explanation 1.-The average sale price referred to in clause
(b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the
agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near
village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three
years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to
be made.
Explanation 2.--For determining the average sale price
referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale
deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has
been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.-While determining the market value under
this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1
15
2026:UHC:4324
or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired
under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the
district shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4.-While determining the market value under
this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1
or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the
Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be
discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall
be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the
transactions in land are restricted by or under any other
law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar
land are not available for the immediately preceding
three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority,
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or
minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price
16
2026:UHC:4324
calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of
similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its
shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired)
as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no
case shall exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value so calculated
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the
case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case
compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to
take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the
land calculated under sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of
any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary
steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis
of the prevalent market rate in that area: Provided also that the
appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value
determined for acquisition of any land or property of an
educational institution established and administered by a religious
or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate
the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice.”
Also, Section 30 of the Act, which provides for
solatium, would be a relevant statutory provision and is
extracted hereunder:–
“ 30. Award of solatium.
17
2026:UHC:4324
(1) The Collector having determined the total compensation to be
paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a "Solatium"
amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation
amount.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that
solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable
to any person whose land has been acquired.
(2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the
particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of
the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under
Section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market
value for the period commencing on and from the date of the
publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment
study under sub-section (2) of Section 4, in respect of such land,
till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier.”
19. On one hand, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, would submit that
landowners/claimants were not entitled to any solatium
amount under the provisions of Sections 26 and 30 of the
Act read with First Schedule of the Act.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that claimants/landowners were not entitled
18
2026:UHC:4324
to any solatium in as much as they have already received
double the amount of market value, hence there was no
question of awarding any solatium.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant would refer
to Section 26(2) of the Act, which states that the market
value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied
by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. Referring
to the First Schedule, learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that since double the amount of market
value had already been granted, thus, no question of any
additional amount as solatium would arise.
22. Per contra , learned counsel for the
respondent/landowners has drawn the attention of the
Court to Section 30(1) and 30(2) of the Act and Section
69(3) as well as Serial No.5 of the First Schedule.
23. Making reference to the aforesaid provisions,
learned counsel for the respondent/landowners would
contend that after determining the total compensation for
arriving at the final award, it is also required to award
the solatium amount equal to 100% of the compensation
amount. He has submitted that Section 30(1) of the Act
has to be read along with Section 69(3) of the Act and the
solatium amount is a distinct and a different component
19
2026:UHC:4324
apart from market value. He, thus, argues that LARRA
committed a manifest error by ignoring the provisions of
Sections 30(1) and 69(3) as well as the First Schedule,
where all the components required to be granted are
specifically mentioned, that too under separate heads.
Since the solatium amount was not granted by the
LARRA, the claimants were constrained to bring the said
anomaly and mistake, which was also writ large on the
face of record, to the notice of LARRA by means of the
review application, which is a statutory provision under
the Act.
24. After considering the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, the provisions of Section
26 and 30 of the Act need to be analyzed for adjudicating
point for determination No.(i). Section 26(2) of the Act
specifically provides that the market value is to be
calculated as per sub-section 1 and shall be multiplied
by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. Section
30(1) of the Act provides that the Collector having
determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to
arrive at the final award, impose a "Solatium" amount
equivalent to one hundred per cent. of the compensation
amount. The solatium amount is the amount which is
paid to the landowners on account of the compulsory
acquisition of the land and is over and above the value of
20
2026:UHC:4324
the land that is being acquired. Thus, from reading of
Section 26(2) and Section 30(1) of the Act, it is
abundantly clear that the solatium amount is a different
component than the compensation and to arrive at the
final award, the total compensation and the solatium
have to be added.
25. In this context, it would be useful to refer to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
“R.B. Dealers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Metro Railway, Kolkata”,
reported in (2019) 20 SCC 658. In the said judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to dwell on the
controversy as has been raised in the present appeal. In
the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that
“4.1....... Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the
scheme of the 2013 Act, the final award declared by the Collector shall be in
three parts/components, namely, the amount of compensation (which shall
include the market value of the land to be acquired and the value of the assets
attached to the land); the solatium determined and payable under sub-section
(1) of Section 30 which shall be equivalent to one hundred per cent of the
compensation amount (the market value + value of assets attached to the
land) and the amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value
[as per sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act]. All the three
components would be independent which shall ultimately form part of the
final award.
21
2026:UHC:4324
“4.3. Therefore, on a fair reading of the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act,
namely, Sections 26 to 30, we are of the opinion that the High Court has
rightly observed and held that the solatium amount to be determined and
calculated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act shall be
equivalent to 100% of the market value determined under Section 26 of the
Act plus the value of all assets attached to the land i.e. the total amount of the
compensation and shall not include an amount calculated at the rate of 12%
p.a. on such market value payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the
2013 Act. On fair reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the
2013 Act, we are of the opinion that any other interpretation would be
contrary to the scheme of the 2013 Act.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is held that the
solatium as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act
has to be calculated only on the market value plus the value of the assets
attached to the land i.e. total compensation amount as determined as per
Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the 2013 Act which shall not include the additional
amount at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value as payable under sub-
section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. We are in complete agreement with
the view [Metro Railway v. R.B. Dealers (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal
,
1834] [Metro Railway v. Kishan M. Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal
,
1835] [Metro Railway v. Kishan M. Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 1836]
taken by the High Court. Both these special leave petitions fail and deserve to
be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.”
26. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 26
and Section 30(1) of the Act and the position having been
clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.B. Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is clear that the solatium
amount is in addition to the compensation as determined
under Section 26 of the Act and is a different component,
22
2026:UHC:4324
hence the point for determination No.(i) is, thus,
answered accordingly.
Point for Determination No.(ii)-
The Point for Determination No.(ii) has arisen
since by virtue of the impugned judgment and order
dated 03.06.2025, the LARRA has allowed the review
application filed by the respondent. Assailing the order
dated 03.06.2025, learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that since there was no error apparent on the
face of the record, hence the provisions of review could
not have been resorted to by the Landowners. The
learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
instead of reviewing the judgment, the LARRA has passed
a new judgment, which is not permissible under
provisions of Order 60 (1)(f) of the Act read with Order 47
Rule 1 of the CPC and he submits that at best the LARRA
could have confined to the error or the anomalies as
contained in the order under review dated 30.01.2020.
He also submitted that in review proceedings, the LARRA
could not have heard the matter altogether de-novo and
could not have returned totally new findings.
27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt would refer to the
23
2026:UHC:4324
judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 and he has
contended that since Section 60(1)(f) of the Act itself gives
the power to the authority to review its own decisions,
directions and orders, therefore, the LARRA had rightly
allowed the review application, since the statutory
solatium amount was not granted by virtue of the
judgment and order dated 30.01.2020.
He would further submit that no new judgment
was passed, in fact, the earlier judgment dated
30.01.2020 was reviewed since there were arithmetical
errors, the solatium component was not granted and the
interest was granted at a lower rate of interest than the
land owners were entitled to, hence, the review
application was rightly entertained and was rightly
decided by the LARRA.
He would further submit that since under
provisions of Section 26, 30(1) and 69(3) read with First
Schedule of the Act, the solatium amount is an additional
amount other than the compensation to arrive at the
final award and since it was a statutory amount that was
to be paid to the landowners for the compulsory
acquisition which had not been paid, hence there was an
error apparent on the face of record and the LARRA has
24
2026:UHC:4324
rightly rectified its error by reviewing the judgment and
order dated 30.01.2020.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent/landowner
would further refer to provisions of Section 60(1)(f) of the
Act and made submissions that the review power is
comprehensive since the authority can review the final
decisions, orders and directions, therefore, no fault can
be found in the order dated 03.06.2025, whereby the
final judgment and order dated 30.01.2020 has been
reviewed by the authority finding errors in the said
judgment and order.
29. Having considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the
record that in the judgment and order dated 30.01.2020,
the LARRA had omitted to grant the solatium amount
and there was also arithmetical error, which so far as the
arithmetical error is concerned, the learned counsel for
the appellant also does not deny or dispute. His
contentions are only regarding the solatium amount,
which he submits, could not have been granted by
reviewing the order dated 30.01.2020.
30. Since Section 30(1) of the Act itself provides for
the solatium amount over and above the compensation to
25
2026:UHC:4324
arrive at the final award, hence ignoring the statutory
provisions by the LARRA is itself an error writ large on
the face of record, and it is a patent error which deserved
to be reviewed and the authority having reviewed its
order and granted solatium amount, did not commit any
error, rather it has corrected the error which had crept in
the judgment and order dated 30.01.2020.
31. Moreover, provisions of Section 60 (1)(f) of the
Act are comprehensive in nature and provide a statutory
power of review to the authority. Hence, the authority has
rightly exercised the power of review vested in it under
Section 60(1)(f) of the Act and as such on this count too,
no error has been found in the impugned judgment and
order dated 03.06.2025.
The Point for Determination No.(ii) is, thus,
answered accordingly.
Point for Determination No.(iii)-
On this aspect, learned counsel for the
appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the
provisions of Section 72 and the proviso thereof. With
reference to Section 72 of the Act, the learned counsel for
the appellant has contended that the interest is payable
from the relevant date as contemplated under the Act.
26
2026:UHC:4324
Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the
attention of the Court to Section 69(2) of the Act and has
submitted that in addition to the market value of the
land, interest at the rate of 12% is payable from the date
of the award or from the date of taking possession of the
land whichever is earlier.
32. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that there is no delay on the part of the appellant
in depositing or remitting the awarded amount, hence,
there is no rhyme or reason for payment of interest
beyond 12% which has already been paid.
33. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent would contend that vide judgment and order
dated 30.01.2020, the authority had awarded interest
only at the rate of 12%.
34. Learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents would submit that proviso to
Section 72 of the Act provides for interest at the rate of
15% in the event of delay in payment and in the present
case, since there was a delay, proviso to Section 72 would
come into play and the landowners/respondents were
entitled to interest at the rate of 15% on the
compensation amount.
27
2026:UHC:4324
35. Having considered the contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is abundantly clear
that the appellant has not been negligent in depositing
the awarded amount, nor has there been any delay on
the part of the appellant in depositing the awarded
compensation. Hence, the authority was justified in
granting 12% interest and not 15% interest as is being
claimed by the landowners/respondents. Thus, on this
count, there is no error in the judgment and order dated
30.06.2025. The point for determination No.(iii), is, thus,
answered accordingly.
36. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, since the point for determination Nos.(i)
and (ii) have been answered against the appellant and it
has been found that the solatium amount is a different
component other than the compensation amount of the
land, and the LARRA has not committed any error in
granting the solatium amount to the
landowners/respondents and the point for determination
No.(ii) is also answered against the appellant to the effect
that the authority had rightly invoked the powers of
review under Section 60(1)(f) of the Act, hence, the appeal
Nos.181 & 182 of 2025 fail and deserve to be dismissed.
The point for determination No.(iii) has also been
answered to the effect that the claimants/landowners are
28
2026:UHC:4324
not entitled to interest @15%, therefore, the First Appeal
Nos.206 and 207 of 2025 also deserve to be dismissed.
37. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.
38. Let the original records be transmitted to the
court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
30.05.2026
Akash
AKASH
Digitally signed by AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef73518c
148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c89182
3fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.06.03 17:39:08 +05'30'
29