Solatium is a distinct statutory component from market value and must be awarded in addition to compensation.

Land in Village Purana Srinagar was acquired for the Rishikesh–Karnaprayag Railway Line Project under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act").

The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) initially passed an award on 30.01.2020, determining land value at ₹7,473/sq. mtr. and awarding double that amount plus 12% interest.

Claimants sought a review under Section 60(1)(f) of the Act, alleging arithmetical errors, non-grant of the mandatory 100% solatium, and seeking interest enhancement to 15%.

On 03.06.2025, LARRA allowed the review, corrected the market value to ₹7,809/sq. mtr., and granted 100% solatium.

Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd (RVNL) appealed against the grant of solatium via review, while landowners appealed for higher interest.

1. Whether the solatium amount is an additional component to the compensation determined under Sections 26 and 30 of the Act.

2. Whether the LARRA has the jurisdiction to review a final judgment and order under Section 60(1)(f) of the Act to rectify omissions of statutory benefits.

3. Whether the landowners were entitled to an enhancement of interest from 12% to 15% under the proviso to Section 72 of the Act.

Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is applied to determine market value.

Section 30(1) mandates a "Solatium" of 100% of the compensation amount "in addition to" the compensation.

Supreme Court precedent R.B. Dealers Pvt. Ltd. v. Metro Railway, Kolkata (2019) clarified that the final award must consist of three independent components: compensation, solatium, and 12% interest.

Section 60(1)(f) regarding LARRA’s power to review its decisions.

Section 72 restricts 15% interest to cases of delayed payment of excess compensation.

The court found that Section 30(1) and the First Schedule of the Act treat solatium as a distinct statutory entitlement separate from the base market value.

By failing to include solatium in the original award, LARRA committed a "patent error" and an "error writ large on the face of the record," justifying the exercise of review power under Section 60(1)(f).

The court observed that 15% interest under the proviso to Section 72 is contingent upon negligence or delay in depositing the amount; since RVNL was not found negligent, the baseline 12% interest was appropriate.

Landowners are not entitled to 15% interest as there was no delay on the part of the appellant; accordingly, all appeals were dismissed and the review award dated 03.06.2025 was upheld in its entirety.