Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2077 of 2008
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
RESPONDENT:
P.S. DAYAL PRASAD AND ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/03/2008
BENCH:
P.P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2077 OF 2008
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.20998 OF 2005]
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Notice under Section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for
acquisition of 8.13 acres of land belonging to respondent No. 1 was
issued on 26.2.1975. On 5.1.1977, Notification in Form ’J’ was published.
On 28.10.1985, the competent authority recommended compensation.
The claimant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded. The
matter was referred to the District Judge, who was appointed as the sole
Arbitrator under the Act. The Arbitrator passed award on 23.3.1989
wherein apart from enhancing the compensation, the Arbitrator gave 6%
p.a. interest over the amount of enhanced compensation. The Union of
India as well as the claimant went in appeal before the High Court and
the High Court by the impugned order dated 25.4.2003 further
enhanced the compensation. Over and above the enhanced compensation,
it awarded solatium at the rate of 15% and 6% interest.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union of India is in appeal before us
by way of special leave petition.
5. It is contended by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the Union of India that on the awarded amount there is no provision for
grant of either solatium or the interest and, therefore, the High Court has
committed an error in awarding the compensation under those heads.
The position in law is conceded by learned counsel for Respondent No.1-
claimant. However, he has submitted that considering the fact that the
competent authority was appointed in the year 1985, nearly after 8 years
from the date of publication of the Notification in Form ’J’, the interest
and solatium granted may not be directed to be refunded. Both learned
counsel have relied upon the decision in the case of Union Of India v.
Hari Krishan Khosla, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149, wherein a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court while considering the provisions of Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, has held that the
provisions for grant of solatium and interest on the amount of
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be read into the
provisions of the Act of 1952.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
5. In view of the above pronouncement by a 3-Judge Bench of this
Court, the High Court has committed an error in giving 15% solatium
and 6% interest over the amount of compensation. However,
considering the fact that although the land had been acquired by
issuance of declaration on 5.1.1977 but the authority having been
appointed after 8 years for determining the compensation, we do not
find it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court so far as the
grant of 6% interest over the enhanced amount is concerned. In view
of the settled legal position, we set aside the order of the High Court in
respect of grant of 15% solatium.
6. The appeal is partly allowed.