http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BRIJ BEHARI SAHAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/08/1986

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1895            1986 SCR  (3) 468  1986 SCC  (3) 564        JT 1986    57  1986 SCALE  (2)154

ACT:      Land  Acquisition   Act  4:   ss.  23   &  35-Temporary occupation of  land-Statutory solatium  on The  compensation decreed-Whether admissible.

HEADNOTE:      The appeals  raise the question whether in a case where the Land Acquisition officer takes temporary occupation, the person interested  in the  land was  entitled to solatium on the compensation  decreed in  a proceeding under s.35 of the land Acquisition Act. The High Court refused to allow it.      Dismissing the appeals, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The  provisions  of  s.  23(2)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act  providing for payment of statutory solatium are not  attracted to  a case of compensation under s. 35 of that Act. [470H]      2. Temporary occupation of land, provided in Part Vl of the  Act,   is  distinct  from,  and  is  not  included  in, acquisition of  land under  Part II  of the  Act because  in acquisition in exercise of the right of eminent domain title of the  owner is  extinguished and the property vests in the State, whereas  when temporary occupation is taken the title of the owner remains untouched. [470C-D]      Tan Bug  Taim v. Collector of Bombay, AIR 1946 Bom. 216 referred to.      3. Clause  "secondly" in  s. 23(1)  of the  Act is  not applicable to  temporary occupation  covered by s. 35 of the Act. Statutory  solatium as  provided in s. 23(2) of the Act does not  apply to  a  case  of  damage  covered  by  clause "secondly" in  s. 23(1) itself. "Market value" occurs in the first clause  of s. 23(l) of the Act and sub-s. (2) of s. 23 refers to  market value.  Solatium has  reference to  market value and the 469 mandate to  pay solatium is only in respect of market value. compensation under  s. 35  of the  Act has  no reference  to market value  and the  actual loss  sustained by the persons interested  in   the   land   only   is   intended   to   be compensated.[470F-H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1041 of 1972 and 578 of 1975      From the  Judgment and  order dated  28.3.1970  of  the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.141 of 1958.      Manoj Swarup and Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.      Prithvi Raj and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH  MISRA,   J.  Both   these  appeals   are  by certificate  from  the  High  Court  of  Allahabad  and  are directed  against   its  modifying   common  judgment  in  a proceeding under  Section 35  of the  Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 (’Act’ for short).      Appellant Brij  Behari Sahai  held on lease little more than 42  acres of  agricultural land out of Military Estates at Allahabad  near the  confluence of  the  Ganges  and  the Yamuna. For the purposes of Kumbh Mela in 1954 possession of the said  land was taken from November 1953 till March 1954. The Land  Acquisition officer  made an Award of compensation and there  being  difference  as  to  the  adequacy  of  the compensation, the  matter was  referred  to  the  Court  for decision. Against  the decision  of the  Court enhancing the compensation, the  State of  Uttar Pradesh carried an appeal to the  High Court of Allahabad. Brij Behari Sahai preferred a cross-objection  asking for  further  enhancement  of  the compensation. The  High Court  dealt with the appeal and the cross-objection and  enhanced the compensation on five heads as indicated  in the  penultimate paragraph  of its judgment but refused to allow statutory solatium of 15%. Against this judgment of  the High Court two separate appeals-one by Brij Behari Sahai  and the  other by  the State  of Uttar Pradesh have been brought before this Court.      Claimant’s  counsel   asked  for   enhancement  of  the compensation on  the basis  of evidence but in the course of hearing we declined to 470 entertain such  a contention.  Similarly, on  behalf of  the State challenge  was made  to the  quantum  of  compensation decreed in  the High  Court and  we did not agree to go into that aspect.  The appeal  of the State has, therefore, to be dismissed. One  contention raised by the claimant relates to entitlement of  solatium on  the compensation  decreed. That question requires to be examined.      It is a fact that the High Court referred to Section 23 (2) of  the Act while fixing the quantum of compensation. We are of  the view  that Part  Vl of  the Land Acquisition Act contains a  complete code  by itself  so  far  as  temporary occupation is  concerned and  provisions of  s. 23  are  not attracted. Parts 111, IV and V of the Act are connected with acquisition covered  by Part  II. Part  VI on the other hand deals with  temporary occupation of the land. In acquisition in exercise  of the  right of  eminent domain  title of  the owner is  extinguished and  the property vests in the State. On the  other hand, when temporary occupation is taken under Part VI  of the  Act the  title remains untouched. It is the possession of  the  property  which  alone  is  taken  over. Reference may  he made to the proviso in s. 36(2) of the Act which contemplates that in a case where possession alone has been taken  under s.  35 but  the land  becomes  permanently unfit to  be used  for the  purposes for  which it  was used immediately before  possession was  taken, it is open to the owner of  the property to require the appropriate Government to take  steps for  acquisition of  the land. This itself is

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

indicative of  the position  that when  possession had  been taken under  s.  35  of  the  Act  it  was  not  a  case  of acquisition under Part II thereof.      We agree  with the  view indicated  in Tan  Bug Taim v. Collector of  Bombay, A.I.R.  1946 Bom.  216. that temporary occupation of land provided in Part VI is distinct from, and is not  included in,  acquisition of  land. We  have already pointed out that clause ’secondly’ in s. 23(1) of the Act is not applicable  to temporary  occupation covered by s. 35 of the Act.  Statutory solatium  as provided in s. 23(2) of the Act does  not apply  to a  case of  damage covered by clause ’secondly’ in  s. 23(1) itself. ’Market value’ occurs in the first clause  of s. 23(1) of the Act and sub-s. (2) of s. 23 refers to  market value.  Solatium has  reference to  market value and  the mandate to pay solatium is only in respect of market value.  Compensation under  s. 35  of the  Act has no reference to  market value  and the actual loss sustained by the persons  interested  in  the  land  is  intended  to  be compensated. In  that view  of the  matter,  to  a  case  of compensation under  s. 35  of the  Act the  provisions of s. 23(2) of the Act cannot be applied. The claimant is thus not entitled to any 471 solatium on the compensation determined by the High Court in this case      The net  result is that both the appeals are dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. P.S.S.                                     Appeals dismissed 472