DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF RAJPIPLA Vs. BALUBHAI MULJIBHAI MACHHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . But Mr. Kadri challenges the order of awarding the entire amount of solatium to the claimants and submits that on account of the restrictive nature did the tenure in the amount of solatium also the Government Would be entitled to deduction of one-third amount therefrom aS in the case of the amount of compensation. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Kadri. By virtue of the amendment of the Act so for as it is applicable in Gujarat brought about by the Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act 1965 clause seventhly was added after clause sixthly to section 23 of the Act providing thus:-

(2.) . Now solatium as one finds from the provisions contained in subsec. (2) of sec. 23 is a sum which is awarded in addition to the market value of the land on consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. Solatium in other words is something provided in terms of money as and by way of solace to the party who is deprived of his land. It will therefore have a direct nexus with the owner of the lands or person having interest in the land and it will have no connection whatsoever with the Government who by virtue of the restrictive nature of the tenure has the right to charge for permitting transfer or partition. Thus by the very nature of the relief which a solatium grants it would be an award available to the owner of the land or a person having interest in the land and not to the State who has merely a right to get a specified amount out of compensation in lieu of the amount which would have been payable to it for permitting transfer or partition of the land annexed with a restitutive tenure so that it which is not transferable or partible without the sanction of the Government I therefore see on merit in the contention raised by Mr. Kadri and hold that the entire amount of solatium should go to the claimants as held by the learned Assistant Judge. Appeal dismissed.