http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2077 of 2008

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

RESPONDENT: P.S. DAYAL PRASAD AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/03/2008

BENCH: P.P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2077 OF 2008 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.20998 OF 2005]

1.      Delay condoned. 2.      Leave granted.  3.          Notice under Section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of  Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for  acquisition of 8.13 acres of land belonging to respondent No. 1 was  issued on 26.2.1975.  On 5.1.1977, Notification in Form ’J’ was published.  On 28.10.1985, the competent authority recommended compensation.   The claimant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded.  The  matter was referred to the District Judge, who was appointed as the sole  Arbitrator under the Act.  The Arbitrator passed award on 23.3.1989  wherein apart from enhancing the compensation, the Arbitrator gave 6%  p.a. interest over the amount of enhanced compensation.  The Union of  India as well as the claimant went in appeal before the High Court and  the High Court   by  the  impugned  order  dated 25.4.2003 further  

enhanced the compensation.  Over and above the enhanced compensation,  it  awarded solatium at the rate of 15%  and 6% interest. 4.           Aggrieved by the said  order, the Union of India is in appeal before us  by way of special leave petition. 5.          It is contended by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for  the Union of India that on the awarded amount there is no provision for  grant of either solatium or the interest and, therefore, the High Court has  committed an error in awarding the compensation under those heads.   The position in law is conceded by learned counsel for Respondent No.1-  claimant.  However, he has submitted that considering the fact that the  competent authority was appointed in the year 1985, nearly after 8 years  from the date of publication of the Notification in Form ’J’, the interest  and solatium granted may not be directed to be refunded.  Both learned  counsel have relied upon the decision in the case of Union Of India v.  Hari Krishan Khosla, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149, wherein a 3-Judge Bench of  this Court while considering the provisions of Requisitioning and  Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952,  has  held  that the  provisions for grant of solatium and interest on the amount of  compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be read into the  provisions of the Act of 1952.

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

5.            In view of the above pronouncement by a 3-Judge Bench of this  Court, the High Court has committed an error in giving 15% solatium  and 6% interest over the amount of compensation.  However,  considering the fact that although the land had been acquired by  issuance of declaration on 5.1.1977 but the authority having been  appointed after 8 years for determining the compensation, we do not  find it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court so far as the  grant of 6% interest over the enhanced amount is concerned.  In view  of the settled legal position, we set aside the order of the High Court in  respect of grant of  15% solatium.

6.      The appeal is partly allowed.