PANNA LAL GHOSH AND ORS.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.

A                      PANNA LAL GHOSH AND ORS.
                                         v.
               LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 12, 2003

B                [RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition :

         Land Acquisition Ai:t, 1894 ·

C         Sections 23(2) and 28-Solatium-Enhanced Rate-Claim for ben-
    efits under the Amendment Act of 1984-Award-made by Land Acquisition
    Collector in 1974-Reference pending in the Reference Court between
    301411982 and 29/9/84~Award passed by Reference Court in 1985-
    Claim for enhanced· rate-Held, Supreme Court having widened the
D   restricted interpretation given to the Amending Act, the appellants are
    entitled to enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest under Section 23(2) of
    the Act.

           Solatum-Held, is mandatory and cannot be done away with-
    Contention that Section 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Development and
E   Planning Act, 1948 excludes compensation by way of solatium, does not
    hold good-Deprivation of solatium by the Act having been held by Courts
    to be invalid and violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India-West
    Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948-Section 8(2)-Con-
    stitution of India, 1950-Article 14.

F      Compensation-Enhancement of-Claim based on an award in an-
  other acquisition proceedings in respect of land situate near the lands of
  appellants-High Court dismissing the claim holding the two lands not
  being proved to be comparable in nature and potentiality-Held, High
  Court was right in not relying on the said document and disallowing the
G claim for enhancement for compensation.
         Certain lands of the claimants-appellants were acquired under
    the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector made
    his award in 1974 awarding Rs. 12,000 per acre for 'nal land,. and Rs.
    9000 per acre for 'chara' land. The reference court by its award passed
H   in 1985 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 36,00D per acre and also
                                         740
        P.L. GHOSH v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR                 741

granted 15% solatium and interest under Section 23(2} of the Act. The A
land owners filed appeal before High Court claiming benefits under
Section 23(2) of the Act as also for· further enhancement of comp.en-
sation, and in support of their claim for enhancement; they produced
certified copy of an· award in another acquisition proceedings in
respect of land, which was 150 ft. away from their lands a.nd wherein B
Rs. 1 lakh per acre had been awarded as compensation. The High
Court did not rely on this document and ·the claim for enhancement·
was dismissed and appellants were also denied the benefits under
Section 23(2) of the Act. Hence the present appeal.

     On behalf of the respondents, it was co.ntended that solatium was C
not applicable because the West Bengal Land Development and
Planning Act; 1948, under which the area in question fell, did not
contemplate it.

     Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
                                                                       D
      HELD : 1.1. The compensation @36,000 per acre as awarded by
the L.A. Judge is upheld. The appellants are entitled to enhanced
solatium @30% under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and an interest@ 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Act. The High
Court in considering the case under Section 23(1-A) of the Act has E
committed an error. The reference by the High Court to Section 23(1·
A) is irrelevant in the present case. The main aspect that arises for
consideration is the rate of solatium. By an amendment in 1984, the
rate was increased to 30% from the original 15% by virtue of Section ·
30(2) of the Amending Act. This increase was given· a limited• F
retrospectivity, in the sense that, the Amending Act, under Section·
30(2) provided that the increased solatium is applicable to those
awards passed by the Collector or the Court between 30.4.1982 and.
29.9.1984. The award was made by the L.A. Collector in 1974.
However; during the period between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984t the
reference was pending in the Reference Court which passed its award G
in 1985. Therefore, the issue is whether the amendmentwould apply
to a case pending during the period of 2 years from 30.4.1982 to
29.9.1984. It has been held by this Court that the enhanced solatium
would apply even to a case pending at the time the Act came into force.
Thus, the benefit of enhanced solatium would extend to the present H
    742               SUJ;>REME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A case. (746-E, 746-B-C; 744-G; 745-A-B; 745-G-HI
         K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1995) SC 1012; Union
    ofIndian v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2SCC 754 and Union ofIndia v. Filip
    Tiago De Gama, AIR (1990) SC 981, relied on.

B      . 1.2. Solatium is 'money comfort' quantified by the statute and
   given as a conciliatory measure for the compulsory acquisition of land
   of the citizen, by a welfare state such as India. Thus the statutory
   amount of solatium is intended to compensate the owner for his
   distinction to part with his pr-operty. The provision of ·solatium is
C mandatory and cannotbe done away with. It has been held in a number
   of ·cases· that the deprivation of solatium by the West Bengal Land
   Development and Planning Act is violative of· Article 14 of the
   Constitution of India and Section 8(2) of the Act is held to be invalid.
   Therefore, the contention that Section 8(2) of the Act excludes com-
D · pensation by way of solatium does not hold good. (744-F-G; 746-C-DJ
        Monoranjan Routh v. State of WB., AIR (1972) Cal. 487 and
    Ramendranath v. State of WB., AIR .(1975) Cal 325, relied on.

         Narain Das Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, [1991) 4 SCC 212,
E   referred to.

         2. Compensatio~ payable on a piece of land acquired under the
   Land Acquisition Act is determined by taking into account the market
   value of the land so acquired. The most reliable way to determine the
F market value is to rely on the instances of sale of portions of the same
   land as has been acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or
   after the Section 4 notification. While determining the market value
   of land, it must.be with reference to a piece ofland which is comparable
   to the present lands being acquired. It must be similar in potentiality
G and nature. The d.ocument which the appellants seek to rely on relates
   to land which was acquired for the purpose of ~ssam-Agartala Road.
   It was 3 feet higher than the acquired land. Further, the two lands were
  .not proved to be comparable in nature and potentiality. Therefore, the
   High Court is right in not relying on the said documents and disallow-
H ing the claim for enhancement for compensation. (744-A.,.B, D-E]
    P.L. GHOSH v. LAND ACQUISffiON COLLECTOR [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 743

    Sanjiva Row, Law of Land Acquisition & Compensation, 8th Edn., A
2001, p. 640, referred to.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9734 of
2003.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2000 of the Gauhati High B
Court at Agartala Bench in M.A. (F) No. 11 .of 1989.

     Sanjay Parikh and R.R. Chandrachud for the Appellants.

     Amitesh Kumar and Gopal Singh for the Respondents.
                                                                            c
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Leave granted.

     The case relates to acquisition ofland measuring 3.37 acres in Mouja
Pabiacheura in Kailashahar, State of Tripura. The notification under D
Section 4(1) ufthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter, 'the Act'] was
issued on 24th December 1968 and on 13th October, 1969, declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was published. The Land Acquisition Collector
made his award in October 1974 awarding Rs. 12,000 per acre for 'nal
land' and Rs. 9,000 per acre for 'chara land'. On 21.10.1974, the E
appellants filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act
for enhancement of compensation. On reference, the learned L.A. Judge
passed an award enhancing compensation, allowing Rs. 36,000 per acre
and also granted 15% solatium, and interest under Section 23(2) of the Act
in ~985.                                                                   F
     On appeal to the High Court, the claim for enhancement was
dismissed. The High Court also denied the appellants benefits· under
Section 23(2) of the Act by relying on the- decision of this Court in KS.
Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1995) SC 1012.
                                                                            G
       Before this Court, tho main issues are as follows:

        (I) Was the High Court justified in not awarding enhanced
        compensation?

                                                                            H
     744                  ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS: [2003]·SUPP. 6S.C.R.

A               (2) Are the appellants entitled.to solatium and interest@ 30%
                under Section 23(2) of the Act?

          .Compensation.payable on a piece of land.acf}1:1ired under the Act is
    dett:rmined by taking into account the market value of the land so acquired.
;B The most reliable way to determine the market value is to rely on the
   "instances of sale of portions of the same land as has been acquired or
    adjacent lands- made shortly be fort! or the after the Section 4 notification 1•

            Accordingly,.the appellants had produced before the High Court a
      certified copy of an award passed by the learned L.A. ·Judge in another
.C acquisition, proceedings. In this case, the land was 150 ft. away from the
      lands involved in ·the present. proceedings. In those proceedings, the
     .learned L.A. Judge had awarded Rs. I lakh per acre as compensation. This
      was sought to be relied on by·the appellants. The High Court-chose not
      to rely.on,this,document as.no evidence was led to show that both lands
tfil .are similar in nature having similar potentiality.
             •While determining; the. market value of. land, it must be with reference
       to a. piece of land which is comparable to the. prest:nt lands being acquired.
       It must• be similar in potentiality and nature. The document which the
       appellants ,seek 'to ·rely on. relates to land which .was acquired ·for the
£    -purpose of Assam-Agartala Road. It-was 3 feet higher than the acquired
       land. Further, the two lands were not proved to be comparable in nature
       and potentiality. Therefore, the· High· Court is-right in not relying on the
       said document and disallowing the claim for enhancement for compensa-
     · tion.
tF
         The second issue relates to the payment of solatiurn @ JO% under
   Section 23(2) of the Act. ··Solatium is 'money comfort' quantified by the·
 - statute and given as a conciliatory measure for the compulsory acquisition
   of land of the citizen, by a welfare state such as India2". Thus·the st?.tutory
   amount of solatium is intended to compensate the owner•for his disincli-
G nation to part with his property.

            The main aspect that arises'for consideration is ..thecissue_ofthe rate

      l.   -Sanjiva Row, Law of Land Acquisition & Compensation, 8th Edn., 2001, p. 640.

H 2.       Narain Das Jain V. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, [1001) 5 sec 212.
    P.L. GHOSH v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]         745

of solatium. By an amendment in 1984, the rate was increased to 30% A
from the original 15% by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act.
This increase was given a limited retrospectivity, in the sense that, the
Amending Act, under Section 30(2) provided that the increased solatium
is applicable to those awards passed by the Collector or the Court between
30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984. Can it be said that the.present case would be B
entitled to this additional benefit?

       The award was made by the L.A. Collector way before the said period
i.e. in 1974. However, the reference Court passed its award after the said
period, i.e. in 1985. Therefore, the issue is whether the amendment would
apply to a case pending during the period of 2 years from 30.4.1982 to          C
29.9.1984.

      This precise issue has come up for consideration a number of times
before this Court. In Union ofIndia v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754,
it was held that the benefit of enhanced solatium would apply only in cases
where the award by the Collector or Court is made between 30.4.1982 and D
24.9.1984 o.- appeals against such awards decided by the High Courts or
this Court, whether rendered before 24.9.1984 or after that date. This Court
found that the language of the Section ruled out the applicability of the
benefit to all pending proceedings.

       In Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, AIR (1990) SC 981, the
                                                                                E
issue was whether the amendment would apply to an award made
subsequent to 24.9.1984 even though the acquisition proceedings had
commenced prior to the date. This Court looked at the intention behind
giving retrospective effect to the amending Section. If the literal interpre-
tation is taken, it was held, it will result in an anomaly. In order to avoid   F
it, regard must be had to the purpose of Section 30(2). Consequently, this
Court awarded higher solatium even though the Reference Court made the
award in 1985.

      Again in K.S. Paripoornan 's case [supra], this Court widened the
restricted interpretation given in Raghubir Singh 's case. It held that the G
enhanced solatium would apply even to a case pending at the time the Act
came into force.

    Following this train of thought, the benefit of enhanced solatium
would extend to the present case. During the period between 30.4.1982 H
    746                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A and 29.9.1984, the reference was pending in the Reference Court. ,.The
    court's award was passed in I 985. Following the above interpretation, the
    appellants are thus entitled to enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest under
    Section 23(2) of the Act.

           The High Cou1t in considering the case under Section 23(1-A) of the
B Act has committed an error. The appellants are entitled to solatium under
    Section 23(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reference by the High Court
    to Section 23(1-A) is irrelevant in the present case.

           The learned counsel for respondents has contended that solatium is
C not applicable because the West Bengal Land Development and Planning
    Act, 1948, under which this present area falls, does not contemplate it. The
    provision of solatium is mandatory and cannot be done away with. It has
    been held in a number of cases that the deprivation of solatium by the West
    Bengal Land Development and Planning Act is violative of Artfole 14 and
D   Section 8(2) of the Act is held to be invalid. {See : Monoranjan Routh v.
    State of WB., AIR (1972) Cal 487 and Ramendranath v. State of W,B.,
    AIR (1975) Cal 325]. Therefore, the contention that Section 8(2) of the
    Act excludes compensation by way of solatium does not hold good.

           In the light of the above, the compensation @ 36,000 per acre as
E   awarded by the L.A. Judge is upheld. The solatium is to be paid @ 30%
    under Section 23(2) of the Act and an interest @ 9% per annum is also
    payable under Section 28 of the Act. The award made by the Reference
    Court as affirmed by the High Court shall stand modified accordingly and
    the appeal is allowed to that extent. No orders as to costs.

    M.P.                                                Appeal partly allowed.