[1] By filing this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of judgment and award dated 30.01.20012 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Gondal in Land Reference Case No.15 of 2011, by which the Reference Court has awarded @ Rs.40/ less 1/3rd = Rs.26.66 paise per sq.mtr. with 30% solatium of the market value of the acquired land. Reference Court has further held that the appellants are entitled to get an amount payable under section 23(1)(A) of the amended land acquisition act, on the market value of the acquired land @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. with effect from 22.08.1985 till the date of award i.e. 04.08.19986 and interest @ 9% and 15% respectively have been granted. However, the trial court has not granted the interest on solatium. Therefore, this appeal.
[2] The main grievance of the appellants is with respect to interest not being awarded by the reference court on solatium. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellants herein that reference court has committed error in not considering the case of Sundar v/s. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211, It is submitted that considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sundar (supra), the claimants would be entitled to interest on solatium. Therefore, it is requested to allow this appeal.
[3] Learned AGP appearing for the respondents has relied upon decision in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v/s. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 2012(2) GLH 318. In para 18 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under : “18) The other grievance of the appellants is that interest on solatium and additional market value was not granted. This aspect has been considered and answered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. While considering various decisions of the High Courts and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in State of Haryana vs. Kailashwati, AIR 1980 P&H 117, this Court held that the interest awardable under Section 28 would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. In view of the same, it is clear that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The above position has been further clarified by a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457. Based on the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Sunder (supra), the present Constitution Bench held that the claimants would be entitled for interest on solatium and additional market value if the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate Court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium and additional market value or where the claim had not been rejected either expressly or impliedly. In view of the same, we hold that the appellants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value as held in the above referred two Constitution Bench judgments.”
[4] Having heard learned advocate for the parties and considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra), this Court is of the opinion that appellants herein – original claimants are entitled to get interest on the solatium also.
[5] In view of above, the Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Judgment and award dated 30.01.20012 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Gondal in Land Reference Case No.15 of 2011 is modified to the aforesaid extent and the opponent is ordered to pay interest on the total aggregate amount of compensation (principal additional amount + 30% solatium under section 23(2) + 12% of interest under section 23(1A) = total aggregate amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession or from the date of publication of Notification under section4 of the Act, whichever is earlier for the first year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the payable total aggregate amount according to provisions of section 28 of the Act, as per the settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sundar v/s. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211, (2001) 3 GLH 446. The other benefits granted to the claimants in the impugned award are not interfered with at all and are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this judgment immediately.
[M.D.Shah, J.] satish