Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7034-7037 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOS. 29463-29466 of 2012)
M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. …… APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA …… RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave are directed
JUDGMENT
against the impugned common judgment and order
dated 07.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala
at Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 196,
199, 205 and 208 of 2009 (filed against the order
dated 15.10.2008 of the learned Sub-Judge,
Ernakulam-the Execution Court), wherein the dispute
between the parties related to the claim of
Page 1
2
solatium for the enhanced amount of compensation
and interest thereon in respect of the acquired
land. The High Court has confirmed that solatium is
payable on that portion of land value based on
capitalization method of yielding rubber trees and
directed to compute balance amount payable under
the decree, but awarded the interest on solatium
from 19.09.2001, the date when judgment by the
Constitution Bench in the case of Sunder v. Union
1
of India was delivered by this Court and not for
the prior period. The legality and validity of the
impugned judgment and order is seriously challenged
urging various legal contentions as the appellant
is aggrieved by the denial of the interest payable
on the component of solatium under Sections 23(1A),
JUDGMENT
23(2) read with Sections 28 and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The
solatium being the component of compensation
payable to the claimant/decree holder, the
restriction upon its payment by the High Court
1
(2001) 7 SCC 211
Page 2
3
placing reliance upon another subsequent
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the
2
case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India is
hereby challenged.
3. The brief facts of the case are stated
hereunder:-
Various portions of rubber estate of the
appellant situated in village Kuttamangalam was
acquired by the State Government in exercise of its
eminent domain power pursuant to the notification
dated 10.10.1978 issued under Section 4(1) of the
Act for the purpose of Periyar Valley Irrigation
Project.
4. In 1980 and 1981 Awards were passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation, on
JUDGMENT
the market value of land which were partly based on
capitalization method of the yielding rubber trees
for the planted area and partly based on the value
of bare land on which there were no yielding rubber
plantation. Awards included solatium and interest
on compensation including solatium.
5. Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the
2
(2006) 8 SCC 457
Page 3
4
appellant filed Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)
Nos. 425, 427, 428, 429, 432, 434, 435, 456, 458
and 463 of 1988 before the Court of III Additional
Sub-Judge, Ernakulam (the Reference Court) under
Section 18 of the Act.
6. The Reference Court after perusal of the
record, by its common judgment, passed an Award on
19.11.1992 by enhancing the compensation partly
based on capitalization method of the yielding
rubber trees for the planted area and partly based
on the value of bare land on which there were no
rubber trees. The Reference Court held that the
claimant is entitled to get 30% solatium, 12%
additional market value from the date of the
notification i.e., 10.10.1978 till the date of
JUDGMENT
Award passed against it and they are also entitled
to get 9% interest for the first one year from the
date of dispossession and thereafter at 15% till
realization of the compensation awarded in favour
of the claimant/decree holder.
7. In some of the abovesaid LARs, payments were
made by respondent-State in full and final
Page 4
5
settlement of the enhanced compensation, solatium
and interest on compensation including solatium.
With respect to the remaining cases, the appellant
filed Execution Petition Nos. 152, 147, 146, 149
and 145 of 1996 before the Execution Court for
execution of the Award/decree passed by the
Reference Court.
8. The Execution Court on 15.10.2008 passed an
order fixing balance amount payable by the State
government after excluding solatium on that portion
of the market value of the acquired land based on
capitalization method of the yielding rubber trees
for the planted area.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order of the
Execution Court, the appellant filed Civil Revision
JUDGMENT
Petition (CRP) Nos. 196, 199, 201, 205 and 208 of
2009 before the High Court of Kerala.
10. The High Court on 07.04.2010 passed the
common impugned judgment and order in the said CRPs
confirming that the solatium is payable by the
state government for the enhanced compensation
awarded for the market value of the entire land.
Page 5
6
Thus, it provided solatium for that portion of land
the value of which was based on the capitalization
method of yielding rubber trees and directed the
respondents to compute balance amount payable under
the decree. However, the High Court awarded the
interest on solatium w.e.f. 19.09.2001, the date of
judgment delivered by Constitution Bench in
Sunder’s case (supra) instead of from the date of
acquisition of the land of the appellant. Hence,
these appeals are filed by the appellant urging
various grounds.
11. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel on behalf
of the appellant contended that the Awards in the
instant case were passed in 1980 and 1981 and the
Reference Court judgment and Award was passed in
JUDGMENT
1992, the time when there was no dispute regarding
the payment of interest on solatium. It is only in
1995 when this Court passed a judgment in the case
of Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers
3
Corporation. Of India Ltd. which barred the
payment of interest on solatium. But the decision
3
(1996) 2 SCC 71
Page 6
7
in Prem Nath Kapur’s case was subsequently reversed
in Sunder’s (supra) case. Therefore, there was no
justification and reason for the High Court to
restrict the payment of interest on solatium prior
to 19.09.2001 by applying the observations made at
paragraph 54 in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra).
12. The learned senior counsel has further
contended that the respondent-State has already
settled few cases covered by the Reference Court
judgment by paying the full compensation, solatium
and interest on compensation including solatium
without any dispute. It shows that there was no
dispute between the parties as to the payment of
interest on solatium by the respondents. Before the
Execution Court, the dispute raised by the
JUDGMENT
respondent-State was as to the amount of land value
on which solatium was to be computed.
13. On the other hand, Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned
counsel on behalf of the respondent-State
government sought to justify the impugned common
judgment and order by placing strong reliance upon
paragraph 54 of Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra),
Page 7
8
which is extracted in the reasoning portion of this
judgment.
14. She further contended that the interest on
solatium can be claimed only in pending execution
cases and not in the closed cases and the execution
courts are entitled to permit its recovery by the
claimant/decree holder from 19.09.2001 i.e., from
the date of judgment in Sunder’s case and not for
any prior period.
15. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal
submissions urged by the learned counsel on behalf
of the parties, this Court is required to examine
the correctness of the impugned common judgment
order passed in the aforesaid CRPs by the High
JUDGMENT
Court in restricting the payment of statutory
interest payable on the solatium component by
placing reliance upon the cases of Sunder and
Gurpreet Singh (supra). In this connection, this
Court is required to find out as to whether the
payment of interest on solatium is the legislative
statutory right conferred upon the land
Page 8
9
loser/claimant recognised by the Constitution Bench
in Sunder’s case. The High Court in the light of
observations made in Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra)
at paragraph 54 has fixed the date of payment of
interest payable on the solatium to the
claimant/decree holder with effect from 19.09.2001.
The correctness of the same is also required to be
examined by this Court.
16. For the aforesaid purpose, it would be
necessary to refer to the question of law as
referred to in Sunder’s case (supra) wherein this
Court deals with the conflicting decisions rendered
4
on one hand in Union of India v. Ram Mehar (three
Judge Bench) and on the other, in later decisions
of co-equal Benches of this Court viz. , Mir
JUDGMENT
Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Deputy Collector, Land
5
Acquisition , Prem Nath Kapur (supra) and Yadavrao
6
P. Pathade v. State of Maharashtra .
17. In the case of Union of India v. Ram Mehar
(supra) this Court after examining the scope of the
expression “market value” in Section 4(3) of the
4
(1973) 1 SCC 109
5
(1995) 3 SCC 208
6
(1996) 2 SCC 570
Page 9
10
Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act,
1967, held that solatium cannot form part of the
market value of the land, rather the “market value”
is only one of the components to be reckoned with
in the determination of the amount of compensation.
The relevant para 7 of the decision reads thus :
“7…..If market value and compensation
were intended by the legislature to have
the same meaning it is difficult to
comprehend why the word “compensation” in
Section 28 and 34 and not “market value”
was used. The key to the meaning of the
word “compensation” is to be found in
Section 23(1) and that consists ( a ) of
the market value of the land and ( b ) the
sum of 15% on such market value which is
stated to be the consideration for the
compulsory nature of the acquisition.
Market value is therefore only one of the
components in the determination of the
amount of compensation. If the
Legislature has used the word “market
value” in Section 4(3) of the Amending
Act of 1967 it must be held that it was
done deliberately and what was intended
was that interest should be payable on
the market value of the land and not on
the amount of compensation otherwise
there was no reason why the Parliament
should not have employed the word
“compensation” in the aforesaid provision
of the Amending Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it provides for the payment of interest on
JUDGMENT
the market value of the land. The said judgment is
Page 10
11
later followed by two Judge Bench of this Court in
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of
7
Kerala . The relevant para 24 of which reads thus:-
“24. ….Therefore, we have no hesitation
to hold that Section 25(3) contemplates
payment of interests on solatium to
recompensate the owner of the land for
loss of user of the land from the date of
taking possession till date of payment
into court. The word compensation has
been advisedly used by the legislature.
Accordingly we hold that the appellant is
entitled to interest on solatium.”
18. On the other hand, in the cases of Mir
Fazeelath Hussain (supra), Prem Nath Kapur (supra)
and Yadavrao P. Pathade (supra) this Court held
that interest is not claimable upon solatium.
19. Due to the said conflicting decisions of this
Court, a reference to the Constitution/larger Bench
JUDGMENT
was made by this Court in the case of Sunder v.
8
Union of India (two Judge Bench). The relevant
paragraph of reference order reads thus :
“Leave granted on the short question
whether interest can be paid on solatium
under Section 28 read with Section 34 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the
7
(1991) 4 SCC 195
8
(2000) 10 SCC 470
Page 11
12
ground that solatium is a part of
compensation. This question squarely
arises for consideration as there is an
apparent conflict between a three-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in the case
of Union of India v. Ram Mehar on the one
hand and the later three-Judge Bench
decisions of this Court in the cases of
Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Dy.
Collector, Land Acquisition , Prem Nath
Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of
India Ltd. and Yadavrao P. Pathade v.
State of Maharashtra on the other. The
later three-Judge Bench judgments have
taken the view that solatium is not a
part of compensation. However, in none of
the later three-Judge Bench judgments the
earlier view of the three-Judge Bench
judgment in the case of Union of India v.
Ram Mehar that solatium is a part of
compensation, has been noticed or
considered. Consequently, in our view,
this matter requires to be decided by a
Constitution/larger Bench of this Court.
We, therefore, direct that the papers may
be placed before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for placing the appeals
arising out of these proceedings for
final disposal before an appropriate
Constitution/larger Bench of this Court.
JUDGMENT
Prior to Sunder’s Case (two Judge Bench), similar
reference was made in Kapur Chand Jain & Ors. v .
9
State Government of H.P. & Ors , the relevant
paras of which read thus :-
“3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
invited our attention to a three-Judge
9
(1999) 2 SCC 89
Page 12
13
Bench judgment of this Court in Union of
India v. Ram Mehar and also later two
decisions of two-Judge Benches of this
Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers
Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Narain Das
Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika . Relying on
these judgments, he submitted that for
applicability of Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 solatium has to be
considered as a component of compensation
and interest could be paid thereon; and
that the High Court has wrongly not
granted interest on solatium. However,
there is another three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur
v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India
Ltd. wherein a contrary view is taken and
it has been held, that no interest is
payable on solatium under Section 23(2)
or on additional amount payable under
Section 23(1-A). For coming to that
conclusion, the Bench of three learned
Judges relied upon another decision of
this Court in P. Ram Reddy v. Land
Acquisition Officer .
4. In view of this conflict of decisions
and also in view of the further fact that
the three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Prem Nath Kapur had no opportunity to
refer to the earlier decision of a
three-Judge Bench in Ram Mehar we direct
that these special leave petitions be
placed for decision before a three-Judge
Bench of this Court. The office may
obtain suitable orders from the Hon’ble
Chief Justice.”
20. The question of reference to Constitution
JUDGMENT
Bench in Sunder’s case (supra) reads thus :-
“Is the State liable to pay interest on
the amount envisaged under Section 23(2)
Page 13
14
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?”
In other words, the question was whether for the
purpose of Section 28 read with Section 34 of the
Act, solatium is a part of compensation. The answer
was in affirmation to the reference question by the
Constitution Bench. By answering the said question
it laid down the law with regard to the question of
payment of interest.
21. From the interpretation of provisions of
Sections 11, 15, 23, 24 and 31 of the Act and after
placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in
State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji
10
Vaghela , it is clear that the amount of
compensation in the Collector’s Award includes not
only the amount determined under Section 23(1) of
JUDGMENT
the Act but also the additional amount of solatium
as stipulated under Section 23(2) of the Act. The
relevant paragraph 9 of the said case reads thus:
“9. ……The collector has to make an award
of compensation under Section 11 and
having regard to Sec. 15 in determining
the amount of compensation, he is guided
by the provisions of Section 23 and 24.
Section 23 (1) requires an award of the
market value of the land. Section 23 (2)
10
AIR 1968 SC 1481
Page 14
15
requires an additional award of a sum of
fifteen percentum on such market value,
in consideration of the compulsory
nature of acquisition…..”
22. Further, from the reading of Sections 28 and
34 of the Act, it is clear that the ‘purpose of
interest’ is to compensate an unpaid landowner who,
on the one hand has been deprived of the possession
of his land in pursuance of compulsory acquisition
by the State Government in exercise of its eminent
domain power and on the other hand, has also been
kept out of the use of the money due to him for the
acquisition by not being paid the money, in full or
in part, in lieu of taking possession. Reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
11
Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh at paragraph 19,
JUDGMENT
which reads thus:
“19 . ……When a claim for payment of
interest is made by a person whose
immovable property has been acquired
compulsorily he is not making claim
for damages properly or technically so
called; he is basing his claim on the
general rule that if he is deprived of
his land he should be put in
possession of compensation
immediately; if not, in lieu of
11
AIR 1961 SC 908
Page 15
16
possession taken by compulsory
acquisition interest should be paid to
him on the said amount of
compensation …."
23. Section 34 of the Act provides for the
payment of interest on “amount of such
compensation”. The word “ such ” makes the reading of
Section 34 read along with Section 31 necessary.
Section 31 of the Act provides for the payment of
compensation or deposit of the same in Court.
Section 31 (1) says “On making an Award under
Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of
the compensation awarded by him to the persons
interested entitled thereto according to the
Award…..” Further, Section 28 of the Act provides
for the direction which may be made to the
JUDGMENT
Collector to pay the interest on excess
compensation. It says “If the sum which, in the
opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have
awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum
which the Collector did award as compensation…..”
Thus, it is clear from Section 34 read with Section
31 and the term “ sum ” under Section 28 of the Act
Page 16
17
that the Award includes not only the sum as is
determined under Section 23(1) of the Act but also
the amounts payable under Section 23(1A) and
Section 23(2). The same has been held by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder’s case,
the relevant paragraph 23 of which reads thus:
“23.…We make it clear that the
compensation awarded would include not
only the total sum arrived at as per
sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the
remaining sub-sections thereof as
well. It is thus clear from Section 34
that the expression “awarded amount”
would mean the amount of compensation
worked out in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 23,
including all the sub-sections
thereof.”
24. After adverting to Sections 34, 28, 23(1),
23(1A), 23(2), 24, 26 and 31 of the Act, the
JUDGMENT
Constitution Bench in Sunder’s case (supra)
answered the question regarding payment of interest
on solatium in affirmation holding that Section 26
of the Act does not say that the Award would
contain only the amounts granted under Section 23
(1) of the Act. It was further held that there can
be no doubt that all the three heads specified in
Page 17
18
the three sub-sections of Section 23 of the Act are
the sums to be awarded by the court. The words
“every award under this Part” in Section 26(1) of
the Act cannot be treated as the Award after
delinking the amounts awarded under sub-Section
(1A) or sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the Act.
Further in paragraphs 20, 21 and 23 in Sunder’s
case (supra), the Constitution Bench has held as
under-
“20… whether exclusion of the factor “
any disinclination of the person
interested to part with the land
acquired” from being considered as part
of the compensation indicated in Section
24 of the Act would be of any aid for
excluding solatium from the purview of
interest accrual process….”
“ 21 . It is apposite in this context to
point out that during the enquiry
contemplated under Section 11 of the Act
the Collector has to consider the
objections which any person interested
has stated pursuant to the notice given
to him. It may be possible that a person
so interested would advance objections
for highlighting his disinclination to
part with the land acquired on account of
a variety of grounds, such as sentimental
or religious or psychological or
traditional etc. Section 24 emphasises
that no amount on account of any
disinclination of the person interested
to part with the land shall be granted as
JUDGMENT
Page 18
19
compensation. That aspect is
qualitatively different from the solatium
which the legislature wanted to provide
“in consideration of the compulsory
nature of the acquisition.”
XXX XXX XXX
23. In deciding the question as to what
amount would bear interest under Section
34 of the Act, a peep into Section 31(1)
of the Act would be advantageous. That
sub-section says:-
31. (1) On making an award
under Section 11, the
Collector shall tender payment
of the compensation awarded by
him to the persons interested
entitled thereto according to
the award, and shall pay it to
them unless prevented by some
one or more of the
contingencies mentioned in the
next sub-section……”
Further, in the said case, after adverting to
Section 34 of the Act, this Court held thus:-
JUDGMENT
“24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act
makes the position further clear. The
proviso says that “if such compensation”
is not paid within one year from the date
of taking possession of the land,
interest shall stand escalated to 15% per
annum from the date of expiry of the said
period of one year “on the amount of
compensation or part thereof which has
not been paid or deposited before the
date of such expiry”. It is inconceivable
that the solatium amount would attract
only the escalated rate of interest from
Page 19
20
the expiry of one year and that there
would be no interest on solatium during
the preceding period. What the
legislature intended was to make the
aggregate amount under Section 23 of the
Act to reach the hands of the person as
and when the award is passed, at any rate
as soon as he is deprived of the
possession of his land. Any delay in
making payment of the said sum should
enable the party to have interest on the
said sum until he receives the payment.
Splitting up the compensation into
different components for the purpose of
payment of interest under Section 34 was
not in the contemplation of the
legislature when that section was framed
or enacted.”
25. The judgment rendered by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Sunder’s case (supra) is the
binding precedent on the question of payment of
legislative statutory interest payable on solatium
under Sections 23(1A), 28 and 34 of the Act which
JUDGMENT
cannot be deprived to the claimant/decree holder by
the court. As the said judgment is binding upon the
State Government it cannot contend that it is not
liable from the date as provided under the
provisions of the Act.
26. The Constitution Bench judgment in Sunder’s
case (supra) is aptly applicable to the fact
Page 20
21
situation of the present case for the reason that
the enhanced compensation includes the solatium @
30% as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Therefore, the claimant/decree holder is entitled
for the interest on the solatium component which is
part of the compensation payable by the State
government to the claimant. The Execution Court
held that the claimant/decree holder company is
entitled to claim solatium only in respect of the
enhanced compensation provided for the land alone
which has been separately fixed, but, not in
respect of that portion of market value of the land
based on capitalization method of the yielding
rubber trees for the planted area which was
separately fixed by the Reference Court in its
JUDGMENT
Award. The High Court was right in holding that the
claimant is entitled for the interest not only in
respect of the land but also with respect to the
trees standing on the land of which the market
value is determined by the Reference Court.
However, it awarded the interest on solatium from
19.09.2001 and not for the prior period by placing
Page 21
22
reliance on Gurpreet Singh case (supra), the
relevant paragraph 54 of which is extracted
hereunder:-
“54. One other question also was sought
to be raised and answered by this Bench
though not referred to it. Considering
that the question arises in various
cases pending in courts all over the
country, we permitted the counsel to
address us on that question. That
question is whether in the light of the
decision in Sunder , the
awardee/decree-holder would be entitled
to claim interest on solatium in
execution though it is not specifically
granted by the decree. It is well
settled that an execution court cannot
go behind the decree. If, therefore, the
claim for interest on solatium had been
made and the same has been negatived
either expressly or by necessary
implication by the judgment or decree of
the Reference Court or of the appellate
court, the execution court will have
necessarily to reject the claim for
interest on solatium based on Sunder on
the ground that the execution court
cannot go behind the decree. But if the
award of the Reference Court or that of
the appellate court does not
specifically refer to the question of
interest on solatium or in cases where
claim had not been made and rejected
either expressly or impliedly by the
Reference Court or the appellate court,
and merely interest on compensation is
awarded, then it would be open to the
execution court to apply the ratio of
Sunder and say that the compensation
awarded includes solatium and in such an
JUDGMENT
Page 22
23
event interest on the amount could be
directed to be deposited in execution.
Otherwise, not. We also clarify that
such interest on solatium can be claimed
only in pending executions and not in
closed executions and the execution
court will be entitled to permit its
recovery from the date of the judgment
in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any
prior period. We also clarify that this
will not entail any reappropriation or
fresh appropriation by the
decree-holder. This we have indicated by
way of clarification also in exercise of
our power under Articles 141 and 142 of
the Constitution of India with a view to
avoid multiplicity of litigation on this
question.”
27. The decision of this Court in Gurpreet
Singh’s Case (supra), upon which the strong
reliance is placed by learned counsel on behalf of
respondent, is totally inapplicable to the fact
situation of the instant case for the reason that
JUDGMENT
the question that arose in the said case was
distinct, which reads thus:-
“What is the rule of appropriation
in execution of money decrees? Is
the rule the same in the case of an
award-decree under the Land
Acquisition Act or, is there
anything in the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 as amended by the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of
1984) making that rule inapplicable
Page 23
24
or not wholly applicable?”
The issue in the said question was examined and
answered by the Constitution Bench with reference
to Prem Nath Kapur’s case (supra) regarding the
rule of appropriation in execution of money
decrees. The examination of Sections 23(1), 23(1A),
23(2), 28, 31, 34 and 11 of the Act was made in
this regard.
28. At paragraph 54 of Gurpreet Singh’s case,
certain observations are made regarding the payment
of interest on solatium. The interest on solatium
can be awarded at execution stage if the Reference
Court or the Appellate Court does not specifically
refer to the question of interest on solatium or
JUDGMENT
cases wherein claim had not been made and rejected
either expressly or impliedly by the Reference
Court or the Appellate Court and merely interest on
compensation is awarded. But where the Reference
Court or appellate court has negatived the same
either expressly or by implication then such
interest on solatium cannot be awarded as it is a
Page 24
25
well settled rule of law that the execution court
cannot go behind the decree. Another point which is
clearly made in the said judgment is that the
interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending
execution cases and not in closed execution cases,
recoverable from the date of the judgment in
Sunder’s case i.e., 19.09.2001 and not for any
prior period. It is also held in this case that
this will not entail any appropriation or
reappropriation by the claimant/decree holder. But,
it is noteworthy that this was not the question
which was referred to the Court for consideration
in the said case. Therefore, it is merely an
observation of the court which cannot be applied as
binding precedent in the instant case with regard
JUDGMENT
to the entitlement of statutory interest payable
under Sections 23(1A), 28 and 34 of the Act on the
solatium. If applied, it would be contrary to the
doctrine of stare decisis . In this regard, it is
necessary to advert to the Constitution Bench (11
Judge Bench) judgment of this Court in H.H.
Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia
Page 25
26
12
Bahadur & Ors. v. Union of India , wherein at
paragraph 138, it is held that it is not proper to
regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in
a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its
context, as containing a full exposition of the law
on a question when the question did not even fall
to be answered in that judgment. The relevant
portion of the paragraph reads as under:-
“138 …The question as to the
jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain
a claim for payment of Privy Purse did
not fall to be determined in Nawab
Usman Ali Khan case . The only question
raised was whether the Privy Purse was
not capable of attachment in execution
of the decree of a Civil Court, because
of the specific exemption of political
pensions under Section 60(1)( g ) of the
Code of Civil Procedure. In Kunvar Shri
Vir Rajendra Singh’s case, the Court did
not express any opinion that Article
366(22) was a provision relating to a
covenant within the meaning of Article
363. In that case the petitioner who was
not recognised as a Ruler by the
President abandoned at the hearing of
his petition his claim to the Privy
Purse payable to the Ruler of Dholpur,
and pressed his claim by succession
under the Hindu Law to the Private
property of the former Ruler. The Court
was not called upon to decide and did
not decide that Article 366(22) was a
provision relating to a covenant within
JUDGMENT
12
AIR 1971 SC 530
Page 26
27
the meaning of Article 363. It is
difficult to regard a word, a clause or
a sentence occurring in a judgment of
this Court, divorced from its context,
as containing a full exposition of the
law on a question when the question did
not fall to be answered in that
judgment.”
[Emphasis supplied]
The said view has been followed and reiterated
subsequently by this Court in a catena of cases
regarding the distinction between ratio of a case
and obiter dicta .
29. In the case of Director of Settlement v. M.R.
13
Apparao , this Court extensively elaborated upon
the principle of binding precedent. The relevant
para 7 is reproduced hereunder:
“7…Article 141 of the Constitution
unequivocally indicates that the law declared
by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
courts within the territory of India. The
aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court
to declare the law. It is, therefore, an
essential function of the Court to interpret
a legislation. The statements of the Court on
matters other than law like facts may have no
binding force as the facts of two cases may
not be similar. But what is binding is the
ratio of the decision and not any finding of
facts. It is the principle found out upon a
reading of a judgment as a whole, in the
light of the questions before the Court that
forms the ratio and not any particular word
JUDGMENT
13
(2002) 4 SCC 638
Page 27
28
or sentence. To determine whether a decision
has “declared law” it cannot be said to be a
law when a point is disposed of on concession
and what is binding is the principle
underlying a decision. A judgment of the
Court has to be read in the context of
questions which arose for consideration in
the case in which the judgment was delivered.
An “obiter dictum” as distinguished from a
ratio decidendi is an observation by the
Court on a legal question suggested in a case
before it but not arising in such manner as
to require a decision. Such an obiter may not
have a binding precedent as the observation
was unnecessary for the decision pronounced,
but even though an obiter may not have a
binding effect as a precedent, but it cannot
be denied that it is of considerable
weight….”
[Emphasis supplied]
The decision of this Court in the case of Deena v.
14
Union of India is also pertaining to the extension
of ratio of a decision to cases involving identical
situations, be it factual or legal, but the same
JUDGMENT
should not be mechanically applied to the facts of
a case, the relevant para 15 reads thus:
…
“15. It is permissible to extend the ratio
of a decision to cases involving identical
situations, factual and legal, but care must
be taken to see that this is not done
mechanically, that is, without a close
examination of the rationale of the decision
which is cited as a precedent. Human mind,
trained even in the strict discipline of
law, is not averse to taking the easy course
14
(1983) 4 SCC 645
Page 28
29
of relying on decisions which have become
famous and applying their ratio to
supposedly identical situations … .”
(emphasis supplied)
The binding effect of judgment of this Court
vis-à-vis State and Central Government circulars is
considered in the case of CCE v. Ratan Melting &
15
Wire Industries , wherein it is held that the law
laid down by this Court is the law of the land. The
law so laid down is binding on all Courts/Tribunals
and bodies and that the circulars issued by the
State or the Central Government cannot prevail over
the law laid down by this Court.
30. From the facts of the present case and in the
light of law laid down on the question of payment
of interest on solatium by the Constitution Bench
JUDGMENT
in Sunder’s case, it is amply clear that the said
case is the binding precedent. As far as Gurpreet
Singh’ s case is concerned, the question which arose
for its consideration was only with regard to the
rule of appropriation in execution of the Award
passed under the provisions of the Act. While
15
(2008) 13 SCC 1
Page 29
30
answering the said question of law after referring
to the relevant provisions of the Act, at paragraph
54, it has incidentally made some observation with
regard to the payment of interest on solatium which
is only an obiter but not the binding precedent as
that question did not fall for consideration before
the Constitution Bench. Therefore, in view of the
foregoing reasons, I hold that there is no need to
advert to the other judgments upon which reliance
was placed by the learned counsel for both the
parties. For the reason that the binding precedent
laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Sunder ’s case on the question of payment of
interest on the solatium to the claimant/decree
holder from the date of entitlement as provided
JUDGMENT
under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, I
pass the following order:-
a) In view of the aforesaid reasons
assigned by me with reference to Sunder and
Gurpreet Singh cases (supra), I am of the
view that the impugned common judgment and
order with regard to awarding interest
payable on solatium w.e.f. 19.09.2001 is
Page 30
31
vitiated in law. Accordingly, that portion
of the impugned judgment and order is hereby
set aside.
b) The civil appeals are allowed. The
respondent-State Government is directed to
pay interest as provided under Section 23(1A)
of the Act on the solatium component of the
Award under Section 23(2) of the Act in the
reference Award in the earlier decisions and
the interest payable under Sections 28 and 34
of the Act. The respondent-State Government
is further directed to compute the same with
reference to the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court from the date when the
claimant decree holder is entitled strictly
in accordance with the abovesaid provisions
of the Act including the solatium and pay to
the appellant within 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. No order as
JUDGMENT
to costs.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[V.GOPALA GOWDA]
New Delhi,
September 14, 2015
Page 31
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7034-7037 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.29463-29466 OF 2012)
M/S. PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. I have perused the proposed judgment prepared by my learned
brother V. Gopala Gowda, J. I am in respectful disagreement with the
JUDGMENT
same. The facts have been broadly mentioned in the judgment of
Gopala Gowda, J. and need not be repeated.
th
2. The award of the Reference Court is dated 19 November, 1992
which did not expressly award interest on solatium. In the impugned
order, the High Court restricted the interest on solatium to the period
th
post 19 September, 2001, following the Constitution Bench judgment of
Page 32
2
16
this Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India directing as follows :
“54. One other question also was sought to be raised and
answered by this Bench though not referred to it.
Considering that the question arises in various cases
pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the
counsel to address us on that question. That question is
whether in the light of the decision in Sunder [(2001) 7 SCC
211], the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim
interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically
granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution
court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim
for interest on solatium had been made and the same has
been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication
by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the
appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to
reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder
on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the
decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of
the appellate court does not specifically refer to the
question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had
not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by
the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely
interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open
to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say
that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in
such an event interest on the amount could be directed to
be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify
that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in
pending executions and not in closed executions and the
execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from
the date of the judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for
any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any
reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder.
This we have indicated by way of clarification also in
exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the
Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of
litigation on this question.”
JUDGMENT
2. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Land Acquisition
17
Officer and Asstt. Commnr. Vs. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur laying
16
(2006) 8 SCC 457
17
(2010) 12 SCC 387
Page 33
3
down as follows :
“13. Coming now to the stipulation that any interest on
solatium can only be granted for the period subsequent to
19-9-2001, the date of the decision in Sunder, it is evident
that this again, is a limitation on the power of the execution
court. The direction is actually referable to those cases in
which the award of the Reference Court or the appellate
court being silent, it is left open to the execution court to
give direction for the deposit of interest on solatium. In such
cases, the Reference Court can ask for interest only for the
period subsequent to 19-9-2001. The direction in no way
circumscribes the power of the court dealing with the main
proceeding relating to enhancement of the compensation.
14. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The
appeal being the continuation of the original proceeding, in
the facts of the cases in this sub-group, there can be no
question of accrual of interest only after the date of the
decision in Sunder. At this stage, it may be recalled that the
civil court had awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9%
for the first year and @ 15% from second year onwards till
the date of realisation. The State’s appeal against the
judgment of the civil court was dismissed. Thus, the
direction for payment of solatium with interest at the rates
indicated had become final. The High Court enhanced the
rate of compensation. This would inevitably lead to an
increase in the amount of solatium and consequently in the
amount of interest on the unpaid amount of solatium. Thus,
looked at from any point of view, the question of payment of
interest subsequent to 19-9-2001 does not arise.”
JUDGMENT
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
judgment in Shivappa (supra) does not apply to the present case
th
as the award dated 19 November, 1992 has attained finality. She also
relied upon Chimanlal Kuberdas Modi vs. Gujarat Industrial
18
Development Corpn. laying down as follows :
“15. It is no doubt true that the execution court cannot
examine the reasons so as to go behind the decree but if in
18
(2010) 10 SCC 635
Page 34
4
the award passed, the Reference Court makes a specific
reference to payment of interest but without any such
reference to the payment of interest on solatium and
merely payment of interest on compensation is granted,
then it would be open to the executing court to apply the
ratio of Sunder and declare that the compensation awarded
includes solatium, and consequently, interest on the
amount could be directed to be deposited in execution.
That being the legal position as prevailing today, we cannot
ignore the observations made in para 54 of the aforesaid
judgment in Gurpreet Singh and we order accordingly that
compensation awarded includes solatium and therefore
interest on the said amount shall be paid by the respondent
in the pending execution.”
To the same effect, she also relied upon Nadirsha Shapurji
19
Patel vs. Collector & LAO and Chhanga Singh vs. Union of
20
India .
4. So long as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the State
stand, the appellant cannot succeed. Any contrary view can be taken
only by a larger Bench. It will thus be appropriate that the matter is
placed before a Bench of 3-Judges.
JUDGMENT
.…..….………………………………..J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
19
(2010) 13 SCC 234
20
(2012) 5 SCC 763
Page 35
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7034-7037 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 29463-29466/2012)
M/S PERIYAR & PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD.
... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA
...RESPONDENT(S)
COMMON
ORDER
In view of divergence of opinion in terms of
separate judgments pronounced by us in these appeals
today, the Registry is directed to place the papers
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appeals
being assigned to an appropriate Bench.
...........................J.
(V. GOPALA GOWDA)
JUDGMENT
..........................J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
Page 36