CHHANGA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a reference for enhancement under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act concerning the land of the petitioners in Village Kureni acquired vide award no. 200/86-87 passed by the LAC on 17. 9. 1986, the learned adj allowed the reference vide its judgment and decree dated 1. 6. 2001, enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4350/- per bigha to Rs. 16750/- per bigha and passed following order in respect of interest and solatium: 14. In addition to the enhancement at the rate of Rs. 12,400/- per bigha, the petitioners are also entitled to get additional amount u/s 23 (1-A) of the act at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier and also to get solatium at the rate of 30% per annum on such market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition, and interest u/s 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the payment on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector. Since there is a time gap of more than three years between the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act i. e. 30. 10. 63 and 16. 1. 69 respectively, the petitioners are also entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the market value with effect from 30. 10. 66 in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Validation Act, 1967 till the date of tender of payment of the amount awarded by the Collector.

(2.) DURING execution of the above order of the learned ADJ, an issue arose whether the petitioners were entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount. The learned Executing Court dismissed the application of the petitioners for payment of interest on solatium and additional amount observing as under:

(3.) THE petitioners" contention is that the judgment of Supreme court in case of Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 was fully applicable in petitioners" case. It was not a case of giving retrospective effect to the judgment. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunder v. UOI"s case has to be considered as the law always been there and mandated by the legislature. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount without any specific order by the Reference Court because that was the legislative intent as found by the Supreme Court. Once the Reference Court enhances the compensation, the consequences of Section 23 (1a), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act have to follow whether the Reference Court specifically allows these interests or not. He relied upon Sarwan Kumar and Anr. v. Madan Lal Aggarwal (2003) 4 SCC 147 wherein Supreme Court observed as under: