Supreme Court of India
MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN AND ORS.versusSPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, HYDERABAD
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 171
- Decided
- 15 May 1992
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- M M PUNCHHI
Holding
The 1984 Amendment Act’s enhanced solatium and interest benefits apply only to awards made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984, so for awards earlier than that the claimants receive only 15 % solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest at 6 % per annum up to 23 September 1984.
Summary
The appellants, owners of several plots acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had received awards from the Collector (10‑June‑1968) and a reference court (30‑August‑1972) and sought enhanced compensation on a belt‑wise basis before the High Court, which awarded varying rates. They appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that lands in the first four belts should receive a uniform rate of Rs 1.75 per square yard, that they were entitled to the enhanced solatium of 30 % and the higher interest rates introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, and that interest should accrue on the enhanced compensation from the date of possession. The respondents argued that the amendment benefits could not apply because the original awards pre‑dated the 1984 Act. The Court held that the amendment’s enhanced solatium applies only to awards made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984, so the appellants are entitled only to 15 % solatium on the enhanced compensation, and interest at 6 % per annum up to 23 September 1984, with the rate after that date to be decided by a larger bench. The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the High Court’s award, granted the enhanced compensation, fixed the solatium at 15 % and interest at 6 % per annum, and referred the dispute over post‑September 1984 interest rates to a larger bench.
Issues considered
- Whether lands in the first four belts should receive a uniform compensation rate of Rs 1.75 per square yard.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhanced solatium of 30 % under the 1984 Amendment Act despite the original award predating the Act.
- Whether the enhanced rate of interest (9 % and 15 %) under the Amendment Act applies to compensation awarded before the Act.
- Interpretation of the phrase “any such award” in Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act – whether it includes appellate orders decided before the Act.
- Whether interest should accrue on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of possession.
- Whether the question of post‑September 1984 interest rates should be referred to a larger bench.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 12, s. 18, s. 23, s. 28, s. 30
- Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984s. 15, s. 18, s. 30
Subjects
land acquisitioncompensationsolatiuminterestLand Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984transitional provisionsappellate jurisdictionbelt‑wise compensationenhanced interestlarger bench
Judgment
A MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN AND ORS.
v.
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LMTI ACQUISITION
HYDERABAD
MAY 15, 1992
B
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND M.M. P~CHHI, JJ.)
LandAcquisitionAct, 1894/LandAcquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984:
C Ss. 12, 18, 23, 28118, 3<>-Land-Acquisition of-Award-Compensa-
tion-To be similar for similarly circumstanced lands.
Awards by Collector and Reference Court-Given prior to 30.4.1982-
-
Solatium-To be given at the rate of 15%--lnterest-To be given at 6% from
date of possession upto 23.9.1984.
D
Rate of Interest after 24.9.1984-Matter refe"ed to larger Bench.
High Court/Supreme Court-Appellate jurisdiction--Co"ection of
award--Effect of.
E Words and phrases : .-4;\
Expression "any such award" occumng in s. 30 (2) of Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984--lnterpretation of.
Certain plots of land of the claimant-appellants were acquired under
F the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector gave the award on 10.6.1968
and the reference Court on 30.8.1972. The claimants filed appeal before
the High Court for enhancing the compensation. The entire land was
categorised in 6 belts according to its quality and situation. The High
Court allowed the compensation at different rates for each of the 6 belts.
G In the appeal by special leave to this Court it was contended on
behalf of the claimant-appellants that the High Court committed an error
in not awarding compensation for the entire land under acquisition at least
at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard as was awarded by it and amrmed by
this Court in respect of land in Survey Nos. 1033 to 1035, because there
H W.s no distinction between the two lands which were acquired by one and
394
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR 395.
)r the same notification. As rega1·ds the interest it was contended that in the A
event of this Court enhancing the compensation, the claimants were en-
titled to enhanced rate of interest on the enhanced amount of compensa-
tion with effect from the date of possession.
On behalf of the respondent, it l,V8S contended that the award being
given by the Collector on 10.6.1968 and by the reference Court on 30.8.l972 B
no benefit of the enhanced rate of interest introduced by the Land Acquisi-
tion (Amendment) Act, 1984 can be given to the claimants.
\r
Allowing the appeal in part and referring the matter to a larger
Bench with regard to the interest, this Court,
c
- HELD : (by the Court) :
(i) For the land falling in the four belts i.e. 1, 2, 3 and 4 the
~ compensation ought to have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq.
yard uniformly as they are similarly circumstanced as Survey Nos. 1033, D
1034, and 1035. As regards the land falling in the fifth. belt, reasonable
compensation should be Rs. 2,000 per acre. As regards the land falling in
sixth belt measuring 661 acres 4 guntas, it is proved on record that the
area consists. of hillocks and such the High court was correct in awarding
the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per acre. [pp. 399 EF; 405 G]
)... E
(ii) The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 extends benefit of
the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the
--- Court is made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984 or to
appeals against such awards decided by the High Court or the Supreme
Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are
F
rendered before September 24, 1984 or after that date. [pp. 401 F; 405 GH]
y
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh,_ (1989) 2 SCC 754, followed.
K Kamalajanimanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1985)
1 sec 582, referred to. G
Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737 and State of Punjab
~ v. Mohinder Singh & Anr., (1986) 1 SCC 365, referred to as overruled.
(iii) Since the Collector gave the award on 10.6.1968 and the court
(Chief Judge, City Civil Court) on 30.8.1972 the claimants/appellants are H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.
A entitled to solatium at the rate of lS per cent only on the enhanced amount ~
of compensation. [pp. 4018; 402A; 40SGH 406A 407F]
(iv) The claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per
centum per annum up to 23.9.1984. [p.407 FJ
B Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754, followed.
(v) There being disagreement with regard to the rate of interest to
be allowed at 6 or 9 per centum per annum from 24.9.1984 till the actual ~
payment in the Court and also in respect of the direction that if such
amount is not paid within three months from the date of the order, the
c claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per centum or 15
per centum per annum, the matter would be referred to a larger Bench.
[pp. 407 F-H; 408A] ·
-
PER KASLIWAL, J.
-~
D 1.1 The solatium is given on account of compulsory acquisition while
the interest is awarded to compensate the delayed payment of the a_mount
of compensation to which the claimant becomes entitled as soon as pos-
session is taken from him till the entire amount is paid. The grant of
solatium comes into operation on the date when award is given by the
E Collector or the Court and the rate of solatium would be governed accord-
ing to the rate prevailing on that date. But so far as payment of compen-
~
sation is concerned, the grievance continues till the entire amount is paid
to the claimant. [p. 404 C-EJ
1.2 Harmonising the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
F keeping in view the intention of the legislature .in enhancing the rate of
interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, and to do
complete justice between the parties, the claimants would be entitled to
interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6 per
centum per annum· from 24.6.1968 the date of taking. possession up to
G 23.9.1984 and at 9 per centum per annum from 24.9.1984 till the payment
of such amount in the Court. [p.405 A-DJ
1.3 As the provision ofgranting interest at the rate of15 per centum per )!.--
annum after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which 1-
possession is taken cannot be applied in terms and the amount ofcompensa-
H tion bas been enhanced by this Court and the State bad no opportunity to
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR 397
make the payment earlier, it would be reasonable to allow three months time ' A
to the State to make the payment and on its failure to do so, the claimants
would be entitled to interest at 15 per centum per annum, from the date of
this order. [p.405 D-F]
PER PUNCHHI, J.
B
1.1 Right from 24.6.1968, the date of taking possession, till payment of ,
such amount is made in Court, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to •
6 per centum per annum as interest. Neither the claimant-appellants are
entitled to 9 per centum per annum interest from 24.4.1984 till payment of
such amount in Court nor is any time to be granted to the State to pay it
within three months at the pain of being liable te> pay interest at 15 per C
centum per annum after three months. [p.407 C-D]
1.2 The amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot
be interpreted to entitle the claimant-appellants 9 per centum interest in the
first year and 15 per centum interest thereafter till payment in Court. The
interpretation of the provision or its harmonizing cannot be so elastic or go D
to such length so as to violate its clear intendment in the drive to 'do complete
justice' or to meet 'the ends of justice'. [p.406 A-BJ
1.3 The expression "any such award" occurring in s.30(2) of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was interpreted by this Court* in the
context to exclude the benefit of enhanced solatium at the appellate level of E
the High Court or the Supreme Court unless the appeal arose against an
award of the Collector or of the Court of a District Judge rendered between
- April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. It can have no two meanings, one
towards the award ofinterest and the other towards solatium. Whatever be
the intrinsic quality of payment on account of solatium and contrastingly F
that of the interest payable, claims to both arise from the date of taking
Y possession till the payment is made in Court. If the governing rate of
solatium would be that as prevailing on the date of the award made by the
Collector or the Court, a fortiorari the governing rate ofinterestwould too be !
the one prevailing on the date of the award made by the Collector or the
1
1
R~ference Court. Inescapably the language of the statute and the spirit G
mandates so. [p.406 C-GJ
~ *Union ofIndia v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754, referred to.
2. The High ·Court at its level and this Court as the last appellate,
are courts of.correction and in the exercise of
the appellate jurisdiction H
'r
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.
A are empowered to correct the award of the District Judge, as if the decision
made by it would have been the award of the District Judge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 706 of
. 1975.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.1974 of the Andhra
Pradesh High court in C.C.C.· Appeal No. 220 of 1972.
K. Madhava Reddy, S. Markandeya, G. Seshagiri Rao, K. Purushot- ~
tam Reddy, K. Prakash Reddy, Ms. Renu Gupta and Ms. Chitra M~kan-
deya for the Appellants.
c
C. Seet~aramiah, T.V.S.N. Chari and Ms.· Manjula Gupta for the
Respondent.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
D KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed
against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 24.6.1974.
The claimants
/
have filed this appeal praying for raising the compensation
of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. yard. The High Court ha.-.
granted compensation of the acquired land on a belt wise basis with
E reference to the distance from the Hyderabad Bombay Road in the· follow-
ing manner.
Survey Nos.1057, 1058, 1061, 1062 and 1065 (land abutting
F
Hyderabad-Bombay Road making a total of 100 acres 4 guntas in the first
belt, the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs.·5,000 per acre.
As regards Survey Nos. 1056, 1059, 1060, 1063 & 1064, total extent of 96
---
acres 7 guntas in the second belt, compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.
·~
4000 per acre. Survey Nos. 1055, 1052, 1051, 1046 and 1045 - total extent
of 100 acres 9 guntas in third belt, compensation awarded at the rate of
Rs. 3,000 p~r acre. Compensation for Survey Nos. 1044, 1047, 1050, 1053
& 1054, total exte}lt of 99 acres 39 guntas, in the fourth belt has· been
G
allowed at the rate of Rs. 2,000 ·per acre. Compensation for Survey Nos.
1043, 1048 and 1049 to the extent of 47.03 acres in the. fifth belt awarded
at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per acre. >--
Lastly the land in the sixth belt forming a huge block of 661 acres 4
H guntas comprising of Survey No. 1009, the High Court has awarded the
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR [KASLIWAL, J.] 399
compensation at the rate of Rs 500 per acre as it was a hillock. A
It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that in respect of
land in Survey Nos. 1033, 1034 and 1035 which was acquired by the same
notification, the compensation was awarded by the High Court at the rate
·of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard by decision dated 7.9.1973. It has been further B
submitted that the said judgment of the High Court was affirmed by this
Hon'ble Court on· 9.9.1974 by dismissing the special leave petitions num-
bers 1689-1690no filed by the State Government. It may be noted that in
that case the High Court had affirmed the compensation awarded by the
District Judge at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard. It has been contended
on behalf of the appellants that there is no distinction with regard to t~e C
land in dispute and the land comprised in Survey Nos. 1033, 1034 and 1035
and the High Court in the present case committed a mistake in not
awardj.ng compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard. We
have taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case. In our view so far as the land comprising in Survey Nos. 1057, 1058, D
1061, 1062 and 1065, 1056, 1059, 1060, 1063 and 1064, 1055, 1052, 1051,
1046 and 1045, 1044, 1047, 1050, 1053, and 1054 falling in the four belts i.e.
1, 2, 3 and 4 the compensation ought to have. been awarded at the rate of
Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard uniformly as they are similarly circumstanced as
Survey Nos. 1033, 1034 and 1035. As regards the land - Survey Nos. 1043,
1048 and 1049 falling in the fifth belt, in our view reasonable compensation E
should be Rs.2,000 per acre. As regard the land - Survey No. 1009 falling
in sixth belt measuring 661 acres 4 guntas, it is proved on record that the
area consists of hillocks and as such the High Court was correct in
awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per acre arid we do not
find any valid reason to take a different view in respect of the compensation F
awarded for this land falling in the.sixth belt.
After reserving our judgment we thought it necessary to hear further
arguments· on the question of allowing solatium and interest under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Amendment Act, 1984'). Learned Counsel for the G
parties were heard at length.
The following question of law was referred for decision to the
Constitution Bench of this Co'Urt in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989)
2 sec 754. JI
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.
A "Whether under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended
by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the claimants
are entitled to solatium at 30 per cent of the market. value
irrespective of the dates on which the acquisition proceedings
were initiated or the dates on which the award has been
passed?"
B
The Constitution Bench in the above case held as under :
---../
"The 'question is: What is the meaning of the words "or to any
order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal
c against any such award?" Are they limited, as contended by the
appellants, to appeals against an award of the Collector or the
Court made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984,
-
or do they include also, as contended by the respondents,
appeals disposed of between April 30, 1982 and September 24,
D 1984 even though arising out of awards of the Collector or the
Court made before April 30, 1982. We are of the opinion that
the interpretation placed by the appellants should be preferred
· over that suggested by the respondents. Parliament has idea-
tified the appeal before the High Court and the appeal before
the Supreme Court by describing it as an appeal against 'any
E such award'. The submission on behalf of the respondents is .~
that the words 'any such award' mean the award made by the
Collector or Court, and carry no greater limiting sense; and
that in this context, upon the language of Section 30(2), the ........
order in appeal is an appellate order made between April 30, '•
F 1982 and September 24, 1984 - in which case the related award
of· the Collector or of the Court may have been made before
April 30, 1982. To our mind, the words 'any such award' cannot
bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for the
respondents. No such words of description by way of identifying
the appellant order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court
G were necessary. Plainly, having regard to the existing hierarchi-
cal structure of fora contemplated in the parent Act those
appellate orders could only be orders arising in appeal against '>-
the award of the Collector or of the Court. The words 'any such
award' are intended to have deeper significance, and in the
H context in which those words appear in Section 30(2) it is clear
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR [KASLIWAL, J.) 401
'
that they are intended to refer to award made by the Collector A
or Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. In
other words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the
benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by
the Collector or by the Court is made between April 30, 198:?
and September 24, 1984 or to appeals against such awar~ B
decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether
the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are
rendered before September 24, 1984 or after that date. All that
is material is that the award by the Collection or by the Court
should have been between April 30, 1982 and September 24;
1984. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusio~ C
- reached by this Court in K Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special.
Land Acquisition Officer, and find ourselves unable to agree'
with the view taken in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chan-
digarh. The expanded meaning given to Section 30(2) in the
latter case does not, in our opinion, flow reasonably from the D
language of that sub-section. It seems to us that the learned ,
Judges in that case missed the significance of the word 'such'
in the collocation 'any such award' in SectiOn 30(2). Due·
significance must be attached to that word, and to our mind it
must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or
the Supreme Court, in which the benefit of the enhanced . E
solatium is to be given, must be confined to an appeal against
an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between '
April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984."
Thus, it was clearly held in the above case that the Amendment Act, : F
1984 extends benefit of the enhance.d solatium to cases where the award
Y by the Collector or by the Court is made between April 30, 1982, and
September 24, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High
Court or the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or
the Supreme Court are rendered before September 24, 1984 or after that
date. The view taken in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [1985) G
3 SCC 737 as well as State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh & Anr., (1986) 1
SCC 365 was overruled and preferred the view taken in KKama/ajamman-
niavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1985) i' SCC 582.
In the case in hand before us the Collector gave the award on H
402 SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.
A 10.6.1968, the Court (Chief Judge, City Civil Court) gave the award on
30.8.1972, and the High Court decided the appe~ on 24.6.1974. Thus the
claimants/appellants are entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent only
on the enhanced amount of compensation.
Now so far as the question of interest is concerned, Section 28 of the
B Amendment Act, 1984 provides for payment of interest on excess compen-
sation. Section 28 as originally stood in the Act allowed interest at the rate
of 6 per centum per annum from the date of taking possession of the land ~
till the date of payment of excess amount into Court.. The following
amendment of Section 28 was inserted by Section 18 of the Amendment
' c Act, 1984:
"18. Amendment of Section 28. - In Section 28 of the principal
-
t, Act,
(a) for the words "six per centum", the words "nine per centum"
D shall be substituted;
(b) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely: -o
"Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that
where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court
after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the
E
date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of
fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the
date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount
of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into
Court before the date of such expiry."
F
Section 30 of the Amendment Act, 1984 provided. for transitional "'fl
provisions and sub-section (2) which dealt with Section 28 of the principle
Act is reproduced as under :
''(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section
G 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section
15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall
be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any >--
award made by the Collector or Court or t~ any other passed
by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such
H award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR [KASLIWAL, J:J 403
day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land A
Acquisition (Amendment) .Bill, 1982, in the House of the
People] and before the commencement of this Act."
It has been contended on behalf on the claimants/appellants that they
are not claiming the enhanced rate of interest retrospectively, but they are B
claiming the enhanced rate of interest on the enhanced amount of com-
pensation which is now allowed by this Court. Learned Counsel submits
that transitional provisions contained in Section 30(2) of the Amendment
Act, 1984 do not apply to the enhanced amount of compensation allowed
for the first time by this Court. It has been submitted that the case Union
of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra) decided by the Constitution Bench dealt C
-· with the question of solatium only and not with the question of interest on
the enhanced amount of compensation. It has been further argued that
once this Hon'ble Court decides that the claimants were entitled to en-
hanced compensation and the possession of the land having already been,
taken as back as on 24.6.1968, the claimants are entitled to enhanced rate D
of inte~est on the enhanced am-?unt of compensation wit!1 effect fromi
24.6.1968.
i
On the other hand, it bas been oontended on behalf of the respon-
dent that the reasoning as given for the enhanced solatium by the Constitu-'
tion Bench in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra) shall E
also apply to the case of enhanced rate of interest also. It bas been
submitted that legislature by introducing special provisions by the Amend-
ment Act of 1984 for the benefit of the claimant~cle~arly laid down in
Section 30 of the transitional provisions that such be~t would be avail-
able only in case of such awards made by the Collector or Court or to any , F
order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any
such award between the 30th day of April, 1982 and the commencement
of the Act i.e. 24th September, 1984. It is, thus c:Ontended that in the
present case the award was given on 10.6.1968 and the reference Court
gave the award on 30.8.1972 as such no benefit of the enhanced rate of
interest introduced by the Amendment Act of 1984 can be given to the ' G
claimants.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced •
by Learned Counsel for the parties. So far as the case Union of India v.
Raghubir Singh (supra) decided by the Constitution Bench is concerned, it · H
_,
404 SuPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.
A dealt with the question of enhanced solatium only and the question of
allowing enhanced rate of interest on the enhanced compensation was not
considered nor decided in that case. However, the Constitution Bench was
dealing with sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the transitional provisions of
the Amendment Act, 1984 which dealt with the provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act as amended by clause
B (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of the Amendment _Act, 1984. Sub-section
(2) of Section 23 of the principal Act after amendment enhanced the
amount of solatium from 15 to 30 per centum and the same reasoning will
apply to the provisi~ns of Section 28 which dealt with the provisions of
enhanced rate of interest on the amount of enhanced compensation. How-
C ever, there is a slight distinction in the case of award of solatium and the
award of interest on the amount of compensation. The solatium is given on
account of CQmpulsory acq~isition while the inte~est is awarded to com-
-
pensate the delayed payment of the amount of compensation to which the
daimants becomes entitled as soon as possession is taken from him till the
D payment is made in the Court. Thus, so far as the grant of solatium for
compulsory nature of the acquisition is concerned, it comes into operation
on the date when award is given by the Collector or the Court and the rate
of solatium woul!i be governed aceording to the rate prevailing on the date
of award made by the Collector or the Court. But so far as the payment
of compensation is concerned, the grievance continues till the entire
E amount is paid to the claimant. Now, if we consider the provisions of the
Amendment Act, 1984 and the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union
of India ·v. Raghubir Singh (supra), it becomes clear that the benefit of
enhanced rate of interest under Section 28 cannot be given till the coming
into force of the Amendment Act, 1984, i.e. 24th September, 1984. How-
F ever, if we look to the statement of objects and reasons of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68) of 1984 it mentions that
the individual and institutions who are unavoidably be deprived of their
property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss
keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interest of
the community. The legislature by Amendment Act, 1984 which came into
G force on 24th September, 1984 has clearly enhanced the rate of interest
from 6 to 9 per centum and further given power to the Court that where
such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry
of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, to allow
interest at the rate of 15 centum per annum payable from the date of expiry
H
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR [PUNCHHI, J.] 405
of the said period of one year. Even if the· provisions of the Amendment A
Act, 1984 are applied prospectively in respect of enhanced rate of interest,
I find no ground or justification not to allow the rate of interest at 9 per
cent per centum per annum on or after 24.9.1984.
I
Thus, hormonising these provisions and keeping in view the intention ; B
of the legislature in enhancing the rate of interest under the Amendment
Act, 1984 and to do complete justice between the parties, I consider that
the following direction would be proper to meet the ends of justice. The
claimants in the present case are not entitled to enhanced solatium as the
award by the Collector was given on 10.6.1968 and the award by the
reference Court was also given on 30.8.1972 and will only be entitled to 15 C
- per centum on the enhanced amount of compensation. This is in accord-
ance with the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union of
India v. Raghubir Singh (supra). Now, so far as the rate of interest is
concerned, the claimants would be entitled to interest on the enhanced ':
amount of compensation at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from D
24.6.1968 the date of taking possession up to 23.9.1984 and at 9 per centum
per annum from 24.9.1984 till the payment of such amount in the Court.
As the provision of granting interest at the rate of 15 per centum per
annum after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which possession is taken cannot be applied in terms and the amount of
compensation has been enhanced now by this Court and the State had no E
opportunity to make the payment earlier, I deem it proper to grant
reasonable time to the State after which it may be liable to pay interest at ·
-
15 per centum per annum. Thus, it is directed that if such amount is not i
paid within three months from the date of this order, the claimants would ;
be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per centum per annum on such F
amount from the date of this order.
I, therefore, allow the appeal in part and set aside the order of the
High Court and grant the enhanced compensation to the appellants and
interest as indicated above. In the circumstfili.ces of the case, both the
•. parties shall bear their own costS throughout. G
PUNCHHI, J. I have gone through the ju~ent prepared by my !
learned-brother N.M. Kasliwal, J. I agree to the rate of compensation per 1
•
acre to be- awarded ~or the land acquired. I also agree that the clairllants-
appellants are entitled to a solatium at the rate of 15 p~r centum only on H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.
A the enhanced amount of compensation and not 30 per ·centum as claimed.
I differ, however, with respect, to the rate of interest proposed to be given ~
to the claimants-respondents by my learned brother on the compensation
being .enhanced by us. The amended Section 28 cannot come to the itld of
. the claimants-appellants ~o as to entitle them 9 per centum interest in the
first year and 15 per centum interest thereafter till payment in Court. The
B interpretation of the provision or its harmonizing cannot be so elastic or
go to such length so as to violate its clear intendment in the drive to 'do
complete justice' or to meet 'the ends of jiistice'. It is true though that the
Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989] 2 SCC 754 ~
was only required to interpret the relevant pro~isions of the Land Acquisi-
c tion Act as amended in the year 1984 in regard to the rate of solatium but
the expression "any such award" was interpreted in the context to exclude
the benefit of enhanced solatium at the appellate level of the High Court
or the Supreme Court unless the appeal arose against an award of the
-
Collector or of the Court of a District Judge rendered between April 30,
1982 and September 24, 1984. Here instantly, neither the award of the ~
D
Collector nor the award of that Court came within the two crucial dates.
Rather the Reference was decided by the Court on 30th August, 1972 much
before the amendment and the appeai before the High Court too was
decided on 24.6.1974 much before the amendment. The High Court at its
level and thi.s Court as the last appellate, are courts of correction and in
E the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction are empowered to correct the
award of the District Judge, as if the decision made by it would have been
the award of the District Judge. The interpretation of the expression "any
such award" can have no two meanings, one towards the award of interest
F
and the other towards solatium. Whatever be the intrinsic quality of
payment on account of solatium and ·contrastmgly that of the interest
-
payable, claims to both arise from the date of taking possession till the
payment is made in Court. If the governing rate of solatium would be that ·~·
as prevailing on the date of the award made by the Collector or the Court,
a: fortiorari the governing rate of interest would too be the one prevailing
on the date of the award made by the Collector or the Reference Court.
G Inescapably the language of the statute and the spirit mandates so. The
Amendment Act of 1984, with effect from September 24, 1984, has en-
hanced rate of interest from 6 per centum to 9 per centum and in the given
situation at 15 per centum but only to those acquisitions which commence >-
from that date and thereafter. The only exception is with regard to those
H
i
MIR HUSSAIN v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR [PUNCHHI, J .] 407 !
!
acquisitions which stood initiated and were pending at the stages conceived , A _
of by the transitional provisions. I therefore regret my inability to agree .
with the views of my learned brother on this aspect. Agreeing with him on ·
the rate of mterest proposed would mean militating against the ratio of the
Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh's case (supra) and doing violence to
the Statute. I Would rather order grant of 6 per centum interest on the B
enhanced compensation to the claimants-appellants from the date of taking
possession of the land acquired till payment, denying myself the exercise
of 'harmonising' these provisions and refraining myself from discovering
any hidden meaning when the language of the statute is clear ~d plain and
has been interpreted in Raghubir Singh's case (supra). Therefore, I am of
the view that· right from 24-6-1968, the date of taking possession till C
payment of such amount is made in Court, the claimants-appellants are
entitled to 6 per centum per annum as interest. Sequally it is my view that
neither the claimants-appellants are entitled to 9 per centum per annum
interest from 24-4-1984 till payment of such amount in Court nor is any
time to be granted to the State to pay it within three months at the pain of D
being liable to pay interest at 15 per centum per annum after three months.
Therefore, I agree that the appeal be allowed in part and the Judg-
ment and order of the High Court be set aside to that extent. The enhanced ,
compensation be granted to the claimants-appellants with 15 per ceiltum
solatium and 6 per centQID per annum interest as indicated above. I also E
-· agree that both the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
!
1
In view of the separate judgments given by us and disagreement on
one point, we pass the following order in the appeal.
The claimants-appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensa- F
tion as well as 15% solatium on the total amount of compensation. As
regards the interest we both agree that the claimants are entitled to interest
at the rate of 6 per centum per annum up to 23.9.1984. However, we are
in disagreem:ent Wit~ regard to the rate of interest to be allowed at 6 or 9
per centum per annbm. from 24.9.1984 till the actual payment in the Court G
and also in respect of the direction that if such amount is not paid within
three months from the date of this order, the claimants would be entitled
to interest at the rate of 6 per centum or 15 per centum per annum.
We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and set aside the judgment
of the High Court to the extent of points agreed. As regards the points in H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.
A disagreement, we request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a 11(
larger Bench to resolve the conflict. In view of the fact that the point in
controversy though short one but is likely to affect large number of cases,
we request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench at
the earliest.
R.P. Appeal partly allowed.
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search