REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. V VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed challenging the order in E.P.No.187 of 1993 in O.P.No.114 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram.

(2.) The point for consideration before the Court below was whether the decree-holder respondent herein was entitled for claiming interest on the amount of solatium and also on the amount of 12% interest which is payable under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge held that the decree-holder was entitled for the said interest both on solatium as well as on 12% interest payable under the above said provision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act and the interest payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act do not form part of compensation for the property acquired and interest is payable under Section 28 of the Act only on the amount of compensation and it is therefore, contended that the order suffers from illegality and has to be set aside. For supporting his argument that these components do not form part of compensation the learned counsel heavily relied on State of Maharastra vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar. In that case what had happened was that answer was passed by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on 25-10-1983 enhancing the amount of compensation. The award became final as no appeal was preferred. Thereafter came the amendment to the Act which was brought into force from29-9-1989.By this amendment, Sec.23(2) and 23(1-A) were inserted. After this amendment came into force, the claimants made a separate application to the Civil Court for awarding solatium and additional compensation under the amended Act. The Civil Court granted the said application and this was the subject matter of the whole litigation.