Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SHRI OM PRAKASH BHASIN (D) BY L.RS. AND ORS. on 25 September 1997
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J
A
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
v.
SHRI OM PRAKASH BHASIN (D) BY L.RS. AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section (23-JA).
land acquisition-Compensation-Solatium and interest-Entitlement to-landowner dissatisfied with compensation-Reference-Award by District C Judge on JO. 10. 1978-Single Judge of High Court vide its order dated 28.01.1981 enhanced compensation from Rs. JO per sq. yard to Rs. 12 per sq. yard-On appeal Division Bench further raised compensation to Rs. 15 per sq. yard-It also held that landowner was entitled to solatium @ 30% on the increase of Rs. 3 per square yard, besides interest @ 9% per annum D for one year from the date of possession of the land and @ I 5% per a'nnum thereafter till the date of payment-Appeal-Held respondents are not entitled to grant of any so/atium-The rate of interest shall be confined to 6% per annum only.
K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [i994] 5 SCC 593 and K.S. E Paripoornan (fl) v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [ 1995] l SCC 367, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7716 of 1994
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.85 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L. P.A. No. 581 of 1981.
F
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.
Ravindra Bana for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Delay condoned.
Jn this appeal which is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court, dated 25.3.1985, notice issued by this Court was limited to the question of solatium and interest only.
H
A
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter the Act) was issued on 7.10.1971. The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award giving compe11sation of the acquired land @ Rs. 200 per maria. The respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned District J1udge, Gurgaon, vide an Award, dated 10.10.1978 allowed compensation @Rs. 10 per square B yard. The respondent challenged the award of the District Judge in the High Court. A learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 28.01.1981 allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10 per square yard to Rs. 12 per square yard. The respondent took the matter further in appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bell.ch further raised the C compensation to Rs. 15 per square yard. The Division Bench also held tne respondent entitled to solatium @ 30% on the increase of Rs. 3 per square yard, besides interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession of the land and @ 15% per annum thereafter till the date of payment. The Division Bench pronounced the judgment on March 25, 1985. Hence, this D Appeal.
Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Award of solatium@30% under the provisions of Section 23 (I-A) of the Act, as introduced by the Amending Act, could not have been granted to the respondent in view of the judgment of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State E of Kera/a & Ors,. (1994] 5 sec 593. It is also submitted that since the Award was made prior to 1982 and even the District Judge disposed of the reference under Section 18 of the Act prior to 1982, interest@ 9% and 15% was not admissible to the respondent. Reliance in that behalf is placed on K.S. Paripoornan (JI) v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [1995] 1 SCC 367.
F
F The submission made by Mr. Malhotra is well founded. Both the issues are squarely covered by the judgments, noticed above. We, therefore, accept this appeal in part and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, dated 25.3.1985 and hold that the respondents are not entitled to grant of any solatium and that the rate of interest shall be confined to 6% per annum only. With this modification in the judgment and order of the High .Court dated G 25.3.1985, the appeal is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.