Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 9734 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2003
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15758 of 2000]
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
Leave granted.
The case relates to acquisition of land measuring
3.37 acres in Mouja Pabiacheura in Kailashahar, State
of Tripura. The notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter, ’the Act’] was
issued on 24th December 1968 and on 13th October,
1969, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
published. The Land Acquisition Collector made his
award in October 1974 awarding Rs.12,000/- per acre
for ’nal land’ and Rs.9,000/- per acre for ’chara land’.
On 21.10.1974, the appellants filed an application for
reference under Section 18 of the Act for
enhancement of compensation. On reference, the
learned L.A. Judge passed an award enhancing
compensation, allowing Rs.36,000/- per acre and also
granted 15% solatium, and interest under Section
23(2) of the Act in 1985.
On appeal to the High Court, the claim for
enhancement was dismissed. The High Court also
denied the appellants benefits under Section 23(2) of
the Act by relying on the decision of this Court in K.S.
Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala,AIR 1995 SC 1012.
Before this Court, the main issues are as follows:
(1) Was the High Court justified in not awarding
enhanced compensation?
(2) Are the appellants entitled to solatium and
interest @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act?
Compensation payable on a piece of land
acquired under the Act is determined by taking into
account the market value of the land so acquired. The
most reliable way to determine the market value is to
rely on the instances of sale of portions of the same
land as has been acquired or adjacent lands made
shortly before or the after the Section 4 notification .
Accordingly, the appellants had produced before
the High Court a certified copy of an award passed by
the learned L.A. Judge in another acquisition
proceedings. In this case, the land was 150 ft. away
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
from the lands involved in the present proceedings.
In those proceedings, the learned L.A. Judge had
awarded Rs.1 lakh per acre as compensation. This
was sought to be relied on by the appellants. The
High Court chose not to rely on this document as no
evidence was led to show that both lands are similar
in nature having similar potentiality.
While determining the market value of land, it
must be with reference to a piece of land which is
comparable to the present lands being acquired. It
must be similar in potentiality and nature. The
document which the appellants seek to rely on relates
to land which was acquired for the purpose of Assam-
Agartala Road. It was 3 feet higher than the acquired
land. Further, the two lands were not proved to be
comparable in nature and potentiality. Therefore, the
High Court is right in not relying on the said document
and disallowing the claim for enhancement for
compensation.
The second issue relates to the payment of
solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Solatium is ’money comfort’ quantified by the statute
and given as a conciliatory measure for the
compulsory acquisition of land of the citizen, by a
welfare state such as India ". Thus the statutory
amount of solatium is intended to compensate the
owner for his disinclination to part with his property.
The main aspect that arises for consideration is
the issue of the rate of solatium. By an amendment in
1984, the rate was increased to 30% from the original
15% by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act.
This increase was given a limited retrospectivity, in
the sense that, the Amending Act, under Section
30(2) provided that the increased solatium is
applicable to those awards passed by the Collector or
the Court between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984. Can it
be said that the present case would be entitled to this
additional benefit?
The award was made by the L.A. Collector way
before the said period i.e. in 1974. However, the
reference Court passed its award after the said period,
i.e. in 1985. Therefore, the issue is whether the
amendment would apply to a case pending during the
period of 2 years from 30.4.1982 to 29.9.1984.
This precise issue has come up for consideration
a number of times before this Court. In Union of
India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754, it was
held that the benefit of enhanced solatium would
apply only in cases where the award by the Collector
or Court is made between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984
or appeals against such awards decided by the High
Courts or this Court, whether rendered before
24.9.1984 or after that date. This Court found that
the language of the Section ruled out the applicability
of the benefit to all pending proceedings.
In Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, AIR
1990 SC 981, the issue was whether the amendment
would apply to an award made subsequent to
24.9.1984 even though the acquisition proceedings
had commenced prior to the date. This Court looked
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
at the intention behind giving retrospective effect to
the amending Section. If the literal interpretation is
taken, it was held, it will result in an anomaly. In
order to avoid it, regard must be had to the purpose
of Section 30(2). Consequently, this Court awarded
higher solatium even though the Reference Court
made the award in 1985.
Again in K.S. Paripoornan’s case [supra], this
Court widened the restricted interpretation given in
Raghubir Singh’s case. It held that the enhanced
solatium would apply even to a case pending at the
time the Act came into force.
Following this train of thought, the benefit of
enhanced solatium would extend to the present case.
During the period between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984,
the reference was pending in the Reference Court.
The court’s award was passed in 1985. Following the
above interpretation, the appellants are thus entitled
to enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest under
Section 23(2) of the Act.
The High Court in considering the case under
Section 23(1-A) of the Act has committed an error.
The appellants are entitled to solatium under Section
23(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reference by the
High Court to Section 23(1-A) is irrelevant in the
present case.
The learned counsel for respondents has
contended that solatium is not applicable because the
West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act,
1948, under which this present area falls, does not
contemplate it. The provision of solatium is
mandatory and cannot be done away with. It has
been held in a number of cases that the deprivation of
solatium by the West Bengal Land Development and
Planning Act is violative of Article 14 and Section 8(2)
of the Act is held to be invalid. (See : Monoranjan
Routh v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 Cal 487 and
Ramendranath v. State of W.B., AIR 1975 Cal
325). Therefore, the contention that Section 8(2) of
the Act excludes compensation by way of solatium
does not hold good.
In the light of the above, the compensation @
36,000/- per acre as awarded by the L.A. Judge is
upheld. The solatium is to be paid @ 30% under
Section 23(2) of the Act and an interest @ 9% per
annum is also payable under Section 28 of the Act.
The award made by the Reference Court as affirmed
by the High Court shall stand modified accordingly and
the appeal is allowed to that extent. No orders as to
costs.
L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T...
....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R.
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited#Collector of Centra
l Excise, Chandigarh#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-
11-25#25623#104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda#Shakutala Devi#2003-11-
03#25624#10906#R.C. LAHOTI###
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 11483 of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh#Tej Bahadur Prajapat
i & Ors.#2003-11-21#25625#11483#R.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9130 of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.#Shapoorji Da
ta Processing Ltd.#2003-11-18#25626#9130#CJI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 14178-14184 of 1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.R
s., etc. etc.#State of Uttar Pradesh#2003-11-28#25627#14178-14184#Doraiswamy Raju###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.#Chico Ursula D’Souza#2003-
11-20#25628#1968#B.P. Singh###
Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey#The State of
West Bengal#2003-11-18#25629#199#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 20 of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan#State of Jharkhand#2003-11-28#2
5630#20#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan#State of Kerala#2003-11-14#25631#2
78#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 292 of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh.#Awadh Kishore Gupta a
nd Ors.#2003-11-18#25632#292#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
###State of Punjab & Anr.#M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.#2003-11-20#25633##CJI.###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 331 of 1997#1997#Shriram#State of Madhya Pradesh#2003-11-24#256
34#331#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P.
& Ors.#Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally & Ors.#2003-11-17#25635#3630-3631#CJI.###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 371-372 of 2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-1
1-27#25636#371-372#S.B. Sinha.###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society#Dist. Officer, Ke
rala Public Service Commission & Ors.#2003-11-17#25637#4075-4081#CJI.###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.#Lalji Tandon (Dea
d)#2003-11-03#25638#4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka#Puttaraja#2003-11-27#25639#
506#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 519-521 of 2003#2003#Goura Venkata Reddy
Vs.#State of Andhra Pradesh#2003-11-19#25640#519-521#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors.
#State of Kerala #2003-11-17#2564
1#530-531#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs.
#Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr. #2003-11-24#25642#7371#R
.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad,
District, Andhra Pradesh #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. #2003-11
-21#25643#9205-07#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.) 77-78 of 2003#2003#K. Anbazhagan
#The Superintendent of Police & ors.#2003-11-18#25644#77
-78#S.N. VARIAVA###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd.
#Collector of Central Excise #2003-11-19#25645#7868#CJI###