http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUIS TION, HYDERABAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/03/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1424            1995 SCC  (3) 208  JT 1995 (3)   410        1995 SCALE  (2)424

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: HANSARIA, J.: 1.   A  land acquisition proceeding which was  initiated  by issuing   notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the   Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) on  25.4.1963  has brought the appellants to this  Court  as they  have felt dissatisfied with the fixation of  a  market value  by  the  Andhra Pradesh  High  Court,  which  granted compensation  on belt  wise basis.  The appeal came  up  for hearing before a two Judge bench and by judgments dated  May 15, 1992 the appeal came to be allowed in part as  indicated in the judgments.  The two learned Judges, however, differed on the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to interest  as enhanced by Section 18 of the Land  Acquisition (Amendment)  Act,  1984 (for short,  ’the  Amendment  Act’). Kasliwal, J. took the view that despite what  has been  held by  the Constitution Bench in the Case of Union of India  v. Raghubir  Singh, 1989 (2) SCC 754 enhanced rate of  interest as visualised in the Amendment Act would be available to the appellants on a harmonious reading of the provisions, if the intention of the legislature in enhancing the rate of inter- est  is  kept  in view.  Punchhi, J., however,  was  of  the opinion  that awarding of enhanced rate on the face of  what was held in Raghubir Singh’s case would militate against the ratio  of  that case and would do violence to  the  statute. The learned Judges, therefore, while allowing the appeal  in part and setting aside the judgment of the High Court to the extend  indicated  in the judgments, requested  the  Hon’ble Chief  Justice to constitute a larger bench to  resolve  the disagreement  with regard to the rate o interest as,  though the controversy is short, the same is likely to affect large number of cases.  Hence, this appeal has come up for hearing by this bench. 2.The  provisions  of  the Act which are  relevant  for  our purpose  are  Sections 11, 23, 25, 26 and 28, which  may  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

noted the threshold :               "11.  Enquiry and award by Collector.-               (1)   On the day so fixed, or on any other day               to  which the enquiry has been adjourned,  the               Collector  shall proceed to enquire  into  the               objections   (if   any)   which   any   person               interested  has  stated pursuant to  a  notice               given under Section 9 to the measurements made               under  Section  8, and into the value  of  the               land  at  the date of the publication  of  the               notification under Section 4, sub-section (1),               and  into  the  respective  interests  of  the               persons  claiming the compensation  and  shall               make an award under his hand of -               413               (i)   the true area of the land               (ii)  the  compensation which in  his  opinion               should be allowed for the land; and               (iii) the appointment of the said compensation               among all the persons known or believed to  be               interested  in the land, of whom or  of  whose               claims,  he  has information, whether  or  not               they have respectively appeared before him :               x     x x x x x x               x     x x x x x x 23.  Matters  to be considered in determining  compensation. (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be  awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take  into consideration -               first:--   the market-value of the land at the               date  of the publication of  the  notification               under Section 4, sub-section (1) ;               secondly:--     the  damage sustained  by  the               person interested, by reason of the taking  of               any  standing crops or trees which may  be  on               the land at the time of the Collector’s taking               possession thereof ;               thirdly:-- the  damage (if any)  sustained  by               the  person  interested, at the  time  of  the               Collector’s taking possession of the land,  by               person  of severing such land from  his  other               land;               fourthly:-      the damage (if any)  sustained               by  the person interested, at the time of  the               Collector’s taking possession of the land,  by               reason of the acquisition injuriously  affect-               ing his other property, movable or  immovable,               in any other manner or his earnings;               fifthly:--      If   in  consequence  of   the               acquisition of the land by the Collector,  the               person  interested is compelled to change  his               residence or place of business, the reasonable               expenses  (if any) incidental to such  change;               and               sixthly:--      the damage (if any) bona  fide               resulting  from diminution of the  profits  of               the  land between the time of the  publication               of  the  declaration under Section 6  and  the               time  of the Collector’s taking possession  of               the land.                (1 -A) In addition to the market-value of the               land,  as above provided, the Court  shall  in               every  case award an amount calculated at  the               rate  of twelve per centum per annum  on  such               market-value for the period commencing on  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             from  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the               notification under Section 4, sub-section (1),               in respect of such land to the date of  taking               possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.   In computing the period referred to  in  this sub-section  any  period or periods during  which  the  pro- ceedings  for  the acquisition of the land were held  up  on account of any stay or 414 injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded. (2)  In  addition to the market-value of the land, as  above provided,  the  Court  shall in every case award  a  sum  of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration  of the compulsory nature on the acquisition. 25.  Amount  the compensation by Court not to be lower  than the  amount  awarded  by  the  Collector.-  The  amount   of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less that the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. 26.  Form of awards.- (1) Every award under this Part  shall be  in  writing signed by the Judge, and shall  specify  the amount  awarded  under  clause first of  subsection  (1)  of Section  23,  and  also the amounts  (if  any)  respectively awarded  under  each of the other clauses of the  same  sub- section,  together with the grounds of awarding each of  the said amounts. (2)  Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement  of  the grounds of every such  award  a  judgment within the meaning of Section 2, clause (2), and Section  2, clause  (9), respectively, of the Code of  Civil  Procedure, 1908. (5 of 19-8). 28.  Collector  may  be directed to pay interest  on  excess compensation.If the sum which, in the opinion of the  Court, the  Collector  ought to have award as  compensation  is  in excess  of  the sum which the Collector did  award  as  com- pensation,  the  award  of the Court  may  direct  that  the Collector  shall pay interest on such excess at the rate  of nine  per  centum per annum from the date on which  he  took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court: 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 date  of 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. 3.   We may also note Section 18 of the Amendment Act  which brought  out amendment in Section 28 of the  principal  Act, which reads as below:               "18.  Amendment of Section 28.  In Section  28               of the Principal Act, -               (a)   for  the  words "six  per  centum",  the               words "nine per centum" shall be substituted;               (b)   the following proviso shall be  inserted               at the end, namely:-               "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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             into Court before the date of such expiry." 4.   The  aforesaid  shows  that the rate  of  interest  was increased from 6 per centum to 9 which would become 15 after expiry  of  the  period  mentioned in  the  proviso  to  the Amendment  Act.  The question for determination  is  whether advantage  of  the  increased in rate of in  rest  would  be available to the appellants.  To decide this we 415 have to keep in mind the following dates: (1)  Date of Collector’s award 10.6.1968, (ii) Date of taking over of possession 24.6.1968 (iii)     Date of Reference Court’s award 30.8.1972; (iv) Date of the decision of the High Court: 24.6.1974 ;and (v)  Date, of this Court’s aforesaid Judgments : 15.5.1992. 5.   The  answer to the controversy lies mainly  in  finding out as to whether the appellants’ case is covered by Section 30 (2)    of the Amendment Act which reads as below:               "30(2)  The  provisions of subsection  (2)  of               Section  23  and Section 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 to any order  passed               by  the High Court or Supreme Court in  appeal               against any such award under the provisions of               the principal Act after the 30th day of April,               1982  [the date of’ introduction of  the  Land               Acquisition  (Amendment)  Bill, 1982,  in  the               House   of   the  people]   and   before   the               commencement of this Act."                   (Emphasis supplied) 6.   As  to  what is the reach and extent of  the  aforesaid section  came  to be examined by the Constitution  Bench  in Raghubir Singh’s case.  Para 32 of that judgment is relevant for our purpose, according to which the expression "any such award"  in  the  section  referred to  awards  made  by  the Collector  or Court between April 30 1982 and September  24, 1984  (which  is the date of commencement of  the  Amendment Act); or the appeals against such awards decided by the High Court  and  the  Supreme Court, whether  the  decisions  are rendered  before September 24, 1984 or after that date.   In the  present case the award of the Collector as well  as  of the  Court  being  before April 30, 1982, on  the  ratio  of Raghubir  Singh’s  case benefit o amended section28  is  not available  to  the appellants.  However, it deserves  to  be noted that Raghubir Singh’s case dealt with the question  of payment  of solatium as enhanced by the Amendment Act.   The real point for consideration, therefore, is whether what was stated  by Raghubir Singh’s Bench regarding  solatium  would apply  to  interest  as  well; and  this  is  the  point  of difference  between  the  two leaned Judges  who  heard  the appeal  earlier.   May we state that the view taken  by  the Raghubir Singh’s Bench has been endorsed by the Constitution Bench in K.S. Paripooran v. State of Kerala, JT 1994 (6)  SC 182 (sec para 58, 59, 102, 106 and 107). 7.   Shri Madhav Reddy, learned Sr.  Advocate appearing  for the  appellants,  has submitted that as appellants  are  not claiming enhanced interest retrospectively but from the date of  coming  into force of the amending  Act  (September  24, 1984)  what  was  stated in Raghubir  Singh’s  case  has  no application.   We find no force in this submission  inasmuch as  enhanced interest as contemplated by section 18  of  the Amending Act de hors what has been stated in sub-section (2) of Section 30.  This is for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

416 the  reason  that the Amending Act has  made  available  the enhanced  rate only to those cases mentioned in  sub-section (2)  of Section 30.  The Court has no power to  enlarge  the scope  of this sub-section.  That would be either  "violence to the statute" as put by Punchhi, J., or an act of legisla- tion by us, which as a court we cannot undertake. 8.   Let  it, therefore, be seen whether, despite  what  was stated  in  Raghubir  Singh’s case  qua  solatium,  enhanced interest  can be claimed by the appellants.  This aspect  is being  examined by us because interest is not a part of  the award  and  section 30(2) of the Amendment  Act  deals  with awards.   That interest does not form of award would  appear from  a  combined reading of Sections 11, 23 and 26  of  the Act.   Section  111 which enjoins the Collector to  make  an award,  requires  him to specify: (i) the true area  of  the land;  (11) the compensation which in his opinion should  be allowed for the land and (iii) the apportionment o the  said compensation.   Section  23  deals with the  matters  to  be considered in determining the compensation.  Sub-section (1) requires  six aspects to be taken note o which  are  subject matters of six clauses o that sub-section.  Sub-section  (2) of Section 23 has provided for payment colloquially known as solatium.   Section  26, which is on the subject of  form  o awards,  states that every award specify the amount  awarded under clause first of subsection (1) of Section 23, and also the amounts, if any, awarded under each o the other  clauses of  the same sub-section.  Sub-section (2) of  this  section states that every such award shall be deemed to be a decree. 9.   The   aforesaid   clearly  shows  that   the   interest visualised  by  section 28 of the Act is not a part  of  the compensation,  and so, not a part of award.  This  has  also been the view expressed by a two-Judge bench of this  Court, to  which one of us (Kuldip Singh, J) was a party, in  Shree Vijay Cotton & Oils Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1991 (1) SCC  262.  (See para 15).  A combined reading  of  aforesaid sections  would show that solatium too is not a part of  the award inasmuch as sub-section (1) of Section 26 specifically states that the award shall specify the amount awarded under each  of  the  clauses of sub-section  (1)  of  Section  23, whereas solatium is dealt by sub-section (2) of Section 23. 10.  The aforesaid being the position, we have to hold  that what was stated in Raghubir Singh’s case qua solatium  shall apply  to interest also.  Enhanced interest is not  demanded by a harmonious reading of relevant provisions, as opined by Kasliwal,  J.,  because the "Intention of  the  legislature" about  which  the  leaned  Judge  spoke,  really  shows  the contrary, according to us, as the increase was sought to  be confined  (for  reasons which need no  examination)  to  the awards  made  between  the dates noted  above,  whereas  the present  award is anterior to the starting point.   We  are, therefore,  in agreement with the view taken by Punchhi,  J. and  state that the appellants are not entitled to  enhanced rate  of  interest  as contemplated by  section  18  of  the Amendment Act. 11.  It  has also been submitted by Shri Madhava Reddy  that higher rate of interest may be ordered to do equity  between the parties.  We are unable to concede, as, had present been a  case of non-awarding of any interest, we would have  done so, because, interest in such cases may be- 417 come  payable  on equity, for it is meant to make  good  the loss suffered by a person due to delayed payment.  This view has been reiterated recently by this Court in Kalimpong Land & Building Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, JT 1994 (6) SC 102,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

in  which  payment  of  interest  was  ordered,  even   when acquisition  was under Requisitioning and Acquisitioning  of Immovable  Property  Act,  1-952,  which  statute  has  made specific  provision, unlike the Act at hand, for payment  of interest.  But equity has no role when the question  relates to rate o interest.  Whether the rate of interest should  be 6%  or 9% is not a matter which would require invocation  of Court’s equitable jurisdiction.  The same has to be governed by  statutory provision.  Had the rate of interest been  too low, we could have perhaps on equity granted some relief But 6%  has been the rate for a very long period insofar as  the Act  is  concerned  as the enhancement  came  only  in  1984 whereas  the  Act is of 1894.  So, we are not  satisfied  if equity demands granting of relief in question. 12.  This is our answer to the point referred to this bench. The  appeal may now be placed for final disposal  before  an appropriate bench. 418