COLLECTOR OF DARRANG Vs. CHANDRA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Collector of Darrang and it relates to enhancement of compensation in a reference made against the award of the Collector relating to acquisition of land in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/69-70. The appeal was heard by Honourable Hansaria, J. and by Judgment and order dated 25-5-88 dismissed the appeal but referred the matter before a Division Bench to decide as to whether the claimant is liable to pay court-fee on solatium if the amount of award is enhanced by the reference court. In the concluding portion of the Judgment, learned Single Judge observed:

(2.) We have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Advocate General, Assam as well as Mr. P.K. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Single Judge also referred in the Judgment about the scope of Sec. 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, for short the Act. Sec. 8 of the Act provides for fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation which reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Advocate General, Assam has submitted that solatium forms a part of the amount of compensation, because under Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, for short "L.A. Act", the compensation consists of what is provided for in sub-section (1) including the Additional amount of solatium to be awarded on tire market value of the land acquired. Therefore, according to learned Advocate General the court fee is payable on this additional amount of compensation Which includes market value of the land in computing the total compensation awarded for acquisition of land. The solatium, according to learned Advocate General is nothing but an additional compensation over and above the market value of the land prescribed under Sec. 23 of the L.A. Act. If the reference court makes an award and solatium is allowed as additional compensation, that solatium would also form a part of the total award. Therefore, according to Mr Goswami the claimant is bound to pay court fee on total amount of compensation which includes the amount of additional compensation as solatium. Mr. P.K. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the solatium is an additional amount on the market value of the land as provided under Sec. 23 of the L.A. Act. It is further submitted by Mr. Barua that it is a statutory obligation on the part of the State or the Collector and the reference court to pay solatium over and above the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. Therefore, according to Mr. Barua this being an obligation on the State or reference court to pay solatium under sub-section (2) of Sec. 23 of the L.A. Act alongwith interest at the rate prescribed therein, the court fee is not payable on such solatium.