land acquisition act, 1894, S. 23(1A), 23(2) r/w S. 28 and 34 — Claim of solatium for the enhanced amount of compensation and interest thereon in respect of the acquired land — High Court has restricted interest on solatium from 19-9-2001, the date when judgment by the Constitution Bench in Sunder, (2001) 7 SCC 211 — Divergent views expressed by the bench which heard the matter — Matter referred for larger Bench.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 23(1A), 23(2) r/w S. 28 and 34 — Claim of solatium for the enhanced amount of compensation and interest thereon in respect of the acquired land — Per, V. Gopala Gowda, J. — Held, claimant entitled for payment of interest on solatium from the date of entitlement as provided under the provisions of the Act and payment of interest cannot be restricted from from 19-9-2001, the date on Sunder case decided — Question of payment of interest on solatium by the Constitution Bench in Sunder's case, it is amply clear that the said case is the binding precedent. As far as Gurpreet Singh's case is concerned, the question which arose for its consideration was only with regard to the rule of appropriation in execution of the Award passed under the provisions of the Act. While answering the said question of law after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, at paragraph 54, it has incidentally made some observation with regard to the payment of interest on solatium which is only an obiter but not the binding precedent as that question did not fall for consideration before the Constitution Bench. Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that there is no need to advert to the other judgments upon which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for both the parties. For the reason that the binding precedent laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder's case on the question of payment of interest on the solatium to the claimant/decree holder from the date of entitlement as provided under the provisions of the Act.
a) In view of the aforesaid reasons assigned by me with reference to Sunder and Gurpreet Singh cases (supra), I am of the view that the impugned common judgment and order with regard to awarding interest payable on solatium w.e.f. 19.09.2001 is vitiated in law. Accordingly, that portion of the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside.
b) The civil appeals are allowed. The Respondent-State Government is directed to pay interest as provided Under Section 23(1A) of the Act on the solatium component of the Award Under Section 23(2) of the Act in the reference Award in the earlier decisions and the interest payable Under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. The Respondent-State Government is further directed to compute the same with reference to the compensation awarded by the Reference Court from the date when the claimant decree holder is entitled strictly in accordance with the abovesaid provisions of the Act including the solatium and pay to the Appellant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 23(1A), 23(2) r/w S. 28 and 34 — (Per, Adarsh Kumar Goel) J.(Disagreeing with the view taken by V. Gopala Gowda, J. — So long as judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the State stand, the Appellant cannot succeed – Any contrary view can be taken only by a larger Bench – It will thus be appropriate that the matter is placed before a Bench of 3-judges. [Para 35]