STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the respondent - claimant has sought correction/review of our judgment dated 19th June, 1995 passed in R.F. A. (LA) No.78 of 1983 on the ground that we have omitted to award solatium and interest which was due and payable to him under Sub Section 2 of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act No.68 of 1984.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record By our judgment dated 19th June, 1995, we have dismissed the appeal of the State of Himachal Pradesh and affirmed the award dated 20th April. 1983 of District Judge, Shimla Division, Camp at Bilaspur. The District Judge had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20000/ -per bigha and solatium thereon at the rate of 15% besides interest at the rate of 6% from the date of taking possession of the acquired land of the claimant -respondent till the date of payment. The respondent -claimant had not filed cross -objections and was satisfied with the award of the District Judge. The right to get Solatium as well as interest at the enhanced rate accrued to the respondent -claimant with the coming into force of Land Acquisition Act (Amendment No 68 of 1984) on 24th September, 1984. as such, there was no occasion for the respondent -claimant to prefer cross -objections to demand Solatium and interest at the enhanced rates Moreover, it is held by Supreme Court in Shri Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd v State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC (656), that it is not necessary for the claimant to file separate appeal/cross -objections before the High Court for the purpose of claiming interest under Section 28 or Section 34 on the argument that these are of different character than the compensation amount under Section 28(1) which is an award decreed under Section 26, as such, it is not to be subjected to procedural hazards and should be paid as statutory claim. The relevant observations of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court arc: - "We have carefully examined the reasoning of the High Court in reaching the conclusion which we have reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. We do not agree with the interpretation placed by the High Court on various provisions of the Act. Reading Section 23 with Section 26 of the Act it is clear that the award, which is deemed to be a decree, is the sum total of conclusions reached by the Courts in determining compensation under Section 23 of the Act on appreciation of the evidence between the parties. The costs under Section 27 and the interest under Sections 28 and 34 are added to the compensation amount to make it a consolidated award. The costs and interest under the Act if not awarded by the lower Court can always be awarded by higher Courts in any proceedings under the Act and to any party entitled to the same under the Act. There is inherent evidence in the wording of Sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that "the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest at 6% per annum ......" The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the Collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award - decree as prepared under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 of the Act. Similarly, Section 28 provides "the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest." Here also the award under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the Section. The interest to be paid under Section 34 and also under Section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under Section 23(1) of the Act. Whereas the interest, if payable under the Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the Act, the amount of compensation under Section 23(1) which is as Award -Decree under Section 26, is subject to the rules of procedure and limitation. The rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come in the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act, And further in para -16: We do not, therefore, agree with the reasoning and the findings reached by the High Court. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the appellant -claimant to have filed separate appeals/cross -objections before the High Court for the purposes of claiming interest under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act. He could claim the interest in the State -appeal. The fact that he filed cross -objections which were dismissed as time -barred is wholly irrelevant."

(3.) The ratio of the above judgment also applies to Sub Section 2 of Section 23 which provides for payment of solatium in addition to the market value of the land fixed under Sub Section 1 of Section 23.