http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MIR FAZEELATH HUSSAIN AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION HYDERABAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1992

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1992 SCR  (3) 394        1992 SCC  (3) 239  JT 1992 (4)   339        1992 SCALE  (1)1241

ACT:      Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984:      Ss.  12, 18, 23, 28/18,  30-Land-Acquisition  of-Award- Compensation-To  be  similar  for  similarly   circumstanced lands.      Awards by Collector and Reference Court-Given prior  to 30.4.1982-Solatium-To be given at the rate of  15%-Interest- To be given at 6% from date of possession upto 23.9.1984.      Rate  of  Interest after 24.9.1984-Matter  referred  to larger Bench.      High   Court/Supreme   Court-Appellate    jurisdiction- Correction of award-Effect of.      Words and phrases :      Expression  "any such award" occurring in s. 30 (2)  of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984-Interpretation of.

HEADNOTE:      Certain  plots of land of the  claimant-appellants were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector gave  the  award  on 10.6.1968 and the  reference  Court  on 30.8.1972. The claimants filed appeal before the High  Court for   enhancing  the  compensation.  The  entire  land   was categorised  in  6  belts  according  to  its  quality   and situation.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  compensation  at different rates for each of the 6 belts.      In  the  appeal by special leave to this Court  it  was contended on behalf of the claimant-appellants that the High Court  committed an error in not awarding  compensation  for the  entire land under acquisition at least at the  rate  of Rs.  1.75 per sq. yard as was awarded by it and affirmed  by this  Court in respect of land in Survey Nos. 1033 to  1035, because there was no distinction between the two lands which were acquired by one and                                                   395 the  same  notification.   As regards the  interest  it  was contended  that  in the event of this  Court  enhancing  the compensation,  the claimants were entitled to enhanced  rate of  interest  on the enhanced amount  of  compensation  with effect from the date of possession.      On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that  the award  being given by the Collector on 10.6.1968 and by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

reference Court on 30.8.1972 no benefit of the enhanced rate of  interest introduced by the Land Acquisition  (Amendment) Act, 1984 can be given to the claimants.      Allowing the appeal in part and referring the matter to a larger Bench with regard to the interest, this  Court,      HELD : (by the Court) :      (i)  For the land falling in the four belts i.e.  1,2,3 and  4  the compensation ought to have been awarded  at  the rate  of  Rs.  1.75  per sq.  yard  uniformly  as  they  are similarly circumstanced as Survey Nos. 1033, 1034, and 1035. As  regards the land falling in the fifth  belt,  reasonable compensation  should be Rs. 2,000 per acre.  As regards  the land falling in sixth belt measuring 661 acres 4 guntas,  it is  proved on record that the area consists of hillocks  and such the High court was correct in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.500 per acre. [pp.399 EF; 405G]      (ii)  The   Land  Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act,   1984 extends benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where  the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984 or to appeals against  such awards  decided  by  the High Court  or  the  Supreme  Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are  rendered before September 24, 1984 or after that  date. [pp. 401 F; 405 GH]      Union  of  India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2  SCC  754, followed.      K.  Kamalajammanniavaru  v.  Special  Land  Acquisition Officer, [1985] 1 SCC 582, referred to.      Union  Territory  of Chandigarh [1985] 3  SCC  737  and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh & Anr., [1986] 1 SCC  365, referred to as overruled.      (iii)  Since the Collector gave the award on  10.6.1968 and  the court (Chief Judge, City Civil Court)  on 30.8.1972 the claimants/appellants are                                                          396 entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent only on  the enhanced amount of compensation. [pp. 401H; 402A; 405GH 406A 407F]      (iv) The claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum up to 23.9.1984.  [p.407 F]      Union  of  India v. Raghubir Singh [1989]  2  SCC  754, followed.      (v) There being disagreement with regard to the rate of interest  to be allowed at 6 or 9 per centum per annum  from 24.9.1984  till the actual payment in the Court and also  in respect  of  the direction that if such amount is  not  paid within  three  months  from  the  date  of  the  order,  the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per centum  or  15  per centum per annum, the  matter  would  be referred to a larger Bench.                                          [pp. 407 F-H; 408A]      PER KASLIWAL, J.      1.1   The  solatium is given on account  of  compulsory acquisition while the interest is awarded to compensate  the delayed  payment of the amount of compensation to which  the claimant  becomes  entitled as soon as possession  is  taken from  him  till  the entire amount is paid.   The  grant  of solatium  comes  into operation on  the date when  award  is given by the Collector or the Court and the rate of solatium would  be governed according to the rate prevailing on  that date.   But so far as payment of compensation is  concerned, the  grievance continues till the entire amount is  paid  to the claimant. [p.404 C-E]      1.2   Harmonising the relevant provisions of  the  Land Acquisition  Act,  keeping  in view  the  intention  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

legislature in enhancing the rate of interest under the Land Acquisition  (Amendment)  ACt,  1984,  and  to  do  complete justice between the parties, the claimants would be entitled to  interest on the enhanced amount of compensation  at  the rate  of 6 per centum per annum from 24.6.1968 the  date  of taking  possession up to 23.9.1984 and at 9 per  centum  per annum from 24.9.1984 till the payment of such amount in  the Court. [p.405 A-D]      1.3  As the provision of granting interest at the  rate of  15  per centum per annum after the date of expiry  of  a period  of  one year from the date on  which  possession  is taken  cannot  be  applied  in  terms  and  the  amount   of compensation  has been enhanced by this Court and the  State had no opportunity to                                                   397 make  the payment earlier, it would be reasonable  to  allow three  months time to the State to make the payment  and  on its  failure  to do so, the claimants would be  entitled  to interest  at 15 per centum per annum, from the date of  this order. [p.405 D-F]      PER PUNCCHI, J.      1.1.    Right  from  24.6.1968,  the  date  of   taking possession,  till payment of such amount is made  in  Court, the  claimant-appellants would be entitled to 6  per  centum per annum as interest.  Neither the claimant-appellants  are entitled  to  9 per centum per annum interest from 24.4.1984 till  payment of such amount in Court nor is any time to  be granted  to the State to pay it within three months  at  the pain  of being liable to pay interest at 15 per  centum  per annum after three months. [p.407 C-D]      1.2  The amended Section 28 of the Land Aquisition Act, 1894   cannot  be  interpreted  to  entitle  the   claimant- appellants  9 per centum interest in the first year  and  15 per  centum interest thereafter till payment in Court.   The interpretation of the provision or its harmonizing cannot be so  elastic or go to such length so as to violate its  clear intendment in the drive to ‘do complete justice’ or to  meet ‘the ends of justice’.  [p.406 A-B]      1.3   The  expression  "any such  award"  occurring  in s.30(2)  of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,  1984  was interpreted  by  this Court* in the context to  exclude  the benefit  of enhanced solatium at the appellate level of  the High  Court  or  the Supreme Court unless the  appeal  arose against  an  award  of the Collector or of the  Court  of  a District Judge rendered between April 30, 1982 and September 24,  1984.   It can have no two meanings,  one  towards  the award of interest and the other towards solatium.   Whatever be  the intrinsic quality of payment on account of  solatium and  contrastingly that of the interest payable,  claims  to both  arise  from  the date of taking  possession  till  the payment is made in Court.  If the governing rate of solatium would be that as prevailing on the date of the award made by the Collector or the Court, a fortiorari the governing  rate of  interest would too be the one prevailing on the date  of he  award  made  by the Collector or  the  Reference  Court. Inescapably  the  language  of the statute  and  the  spirit mandates so. [p.406 C-G]      *Union  of India v. Raghubir Singh [1989] 2  SCC   754, referred to.      2.   The High Court at its level and this Court as  the last appellate, are courts of correction and in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction                                                   398 are empowered to correct the award of the District Judge, as if the decision made by it would have been the award of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

District Judge.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 706  of 1975 .      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  24.6.1974  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C. Appeal No. 220 of 1972.      K.  Madhava Reddy, S. Markandeya, G. Seshagiri Rao,  K. Purushottam   Reddy, K. Prakash Reddy, Ms. Renu   Gupta  and Ms. Chitra Markandeya for the Appellants.      C. Seetharamiah, T.V.S.N.  Chari and Ms. Manjula  Gupta for the Respondent.      The Judgments of the Court were delivered by      KASLIWAL,  J. This appeal by grant of special leave  is directed against  the judgment of the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court dated 24.6.1974.  The claimants have filed this appeal praying for raising the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. yard.  The High Court has  granted compensation of the acquired land on a belt wise basis  with reference to the distance from the Hyderabad Bombay Road  in the following manner.      Survey  Nos. 1057,  1058, 1061,  1062  and  1065  (land abutting Hyderabad-Bombay Road making a total of 100   acres 4  guntas  in  the first belt,  the  compensation  has  been awarded  at  the  rate of Rs. 5,000 per  acre.   As  regards Survey  Nos. 1056, 1059, 1060, 1063 & 1064, total extent  of 96  acres 7 guntas in the second belt, compensation  awarded at  the rate of Rs. 4000 per acre.  Survey Nos. 1055,  1052, 1051, 1046 and 1045 - total extent of 100 acres 9 guntas  in third  belt, compensation awarded at the rate of  Rs.  3,000 per  acre.  Compensation for Survey Nos. 1044,  1047,  1050, 1053  &  1054, total extent of 99 acres 39  guntas,  in  the fourth  belt has been allowed at the rate of Rs.  2,000  per acre.  Compensation for Survey Nos.  1043, 1048 and 1049  to the  extent of 47.03 acres in the fifth belt awarded at  the rate of Rs. 1,000 per acre.      Lastly the land in the sixth belt forming a huge  block of  661  acres 4 guntas comprising of Survey No.  1009,  the High Court has awarded the                                                         399 compensation  at  the rate of Rs 500 per acre as  it  was  a hillock.      It has been contended on behalf of the appellants  that in respect of land in Survey Nos.  1033, 1034 and 1035 which was acquired by the same notification, the compensation  was awarded  by the High Court  at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per  sq. yard  by  decision  dated 7.9.1973.   It  has  been  further submitted  that  the said judgment of the  High  Court  was affirmed  by  this Hon’ble Court on 9.9.1974  by  dismissing the  special leave petitions numbers 1689-1690/70  filed  by the  State Government.  It may  be noted that in  that  case the High Court had affirmed the compensation awarded by  the District Judge at the rate of Rs. 1.75 per sq. yard.  It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that there is  no distinction with regard to the land in dispute and the  land comprised  in Survey Nos. 1033, 1034 and 1035 and  the  High Court  in  the  present  case committed  a  mistake  in  not awarding  compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 1.75  per sq. yard.  We have taken into consideration the entire facts and  circumstances of the case.  In our view so far  as  the land  comprising in Survey Nos.  1057, 1058, 1061, 1062  and 1065,  1056,  1059, 1060, 1063 and 1064, 1055,  1052,  1051, 1046  and 1045, 1044, 1047, 1050, 1053, and 1054 falling  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

the  four belts i.e. 1,2,3 and 4 the compensation  ought  to have  been  awarded  at the rate of Rs. 1.75  per  sq.  yard uniformly  as  they are  similarly circumstanced  as  Survey Nos. 1033, 1034 and 1035.  As regards the land - Survey Nos. 1043,  1048 and 1049 falling in the fifth belt, in our  view reasonable  compensation  should be Rs.2,000 per  acre.   As regard  the  land - Survey No. 1009 falling  in  sixth  belt measuring  661 acres 4 guntas, it is proved on  record  that the area consists of hillocks and as such the High Court was correct in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.  500 per  acre  and  we do not find any valid reason  to  take  a different  view in respect of the compensation  awarded  for this land falling in the sixth belt.      After reserving our judgment we thought it necessary to hear further arguments on the  question of allowing solatium and  interest under the provisions of the  Land  Acquisition (Amendment)  Act,  1984  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the ‘Amendment  Act,  1984’).  Learned Counsel for  the  parties were heard at length.      The following question of law was referred for decision to the Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754.                                                   400          "Whether  under the Land Acquisition Act,  1894  as          amended  by the Land Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act,          1984  the claimants are entitled to solatium at  30          per  cent of the market value irrespective  of  the          dates  on  which the acquisition  proceedings  were          initiated or the dates on which the award has  been          passed?"      The Constitution Bench in the above case held as under:          "The question is : What is the meaning of the words          "or  to  any  order passed by  the  High  Court  or          Supreme  Court on appeal against any  such  award?"          Are they limited,  as  contended by the appellants,          to appeals against an award of the Collector or the          Court made between April 30, 1982 and September 24,          1984,  or do they include also, as contended by the          respondents, appeals disposed of between April  30,          1982 and September 24, 1984,even though arising out          of awards of the Collector or the Court made before          April  30,  1982.  We are of the opinion  that  the          interpretation  placed by the appellants should  be          preferred  over that suggested by the  respondents.          Parliament  has  identified the appeal  before  the          High Court and the appeal  before the Supreme Court          by  describing  it as an appeal against  ‘any  such          award’.    The   submission  on   behalf   of   the          respondents is that the words ‘any such award’ mean          the award made by the Collector or Court, and carry          no  greater  limiting  sense;  and  that  in   this          context,  upon the language of Section  30(2),  the          order in appeal is an appellate order made  between          April  30,  1982 and September 24, 1984 - in  which          case  the related award of the Collector or of  the          Court may have been made before April 30, 1982.  To          our  mind, the words ‘any such award’ cannot  bear          the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel  for          the  respondents.  No such words of description  by          way of identifying the appellant order of the  High          Court  or  of  the Supreme  Court  were  necessary.          Plainly, having regard to the existing hierarchical          structure  of fora contemplated in the  parent  Act          those appellate orders could only be orders arising          in appeal against the award of the Collector or  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

        the Court. The words ‘any such award’ are  intended          to have deeper significance, and in the context  in          which  those  words appear in Section 30(2)  it  is          clear                                                      401          that  they are intended to refer to award  made  by          the  Collector or Court between April 30, 1982  and          September  24, 1984.  In other words Section  30(2)          of  the  Amendment Act extends the benefit  of  the          enhanced solatium to cases where  the award by  the          Collector or by the Court is made between April 30,          1982  and September 24, 1984 or to appeals  against          such  awards  decided  by the High  Court  and  the          Supreme  Court  whether the decisions of  the  High          Court  or  the Supreme Court  are  rendered  before          September  24, 1984 or after that date.   All  that          is material is that the award by the Collection  or          by  the  Court should have been between  April  30,          1982 and September  24, 1984.  We find ourselves in          agreement with the conclusion reached by this Court          in   K.   Kamalajammanniavaru   v.   Special   Land          Acquisition  Officer, and find ourselves unable  to          agree  with the view taken in Bhag Singh  v.  Union          Territory  of  Chandigarh.   The  expanded  meaning          given to Section 30(2) in the latter case does not,          in  our opinion, flow reasonably from the  language          of  that  sub-section.   It seems to  us  that  the          learned Judges in that case missed the significance          of  the  word ‘such’ in the collocation  ‘any  such          award’ in Section 30(2).  Due significance must  be          attached  to  that word, and to our  mind  it  must          necessarily  intend  that the appeal  to  the  High          Court or the Supreme Court, in which the benefit of          the  enhanced  solatium  is to be  given,  must  be          confined  to  an  appeal against an  award  of  the          Collector  or of the Court rendered  between  April          30, 1982 and September 24, 1984."      Thus,  it was clearly held in the above case  that  the Amendment Act, 1984 extends benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made  between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984  or  to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme  Court  are rendered before September  24,  1984  or after  that  date.  The view taken in Bhag  Singh  v.  Union Territory  of Chandigarh, [1985] 3 SCC 737 as well as  State of  Punjab v. Mohinder Singh  & Anr., [1986] 1 SCC  365  was overruled    and   preferred   the   view   taken   in    K. Kamalajammanniavaru  v.  Special Land  Acquisition  Officer, [1985] 1 SCC 582.      In  the case in hand before us the Collector  gave  the award on                                                   402 10.6.1968, the Court (Chief Judge, City Civil Court gave the award  on 30.8.1972,  and the High Court decided the  appeal on 24.6.1974.  Thus the claimants/appellants are entitled to solatium  at  the rate of 15 per cent only on  the  enhanced amount of compensation.      Now  so far as the question of interest  is  concerned, Section  28 of the Amendment Act, 1984 provides for  payment of   interest  on  excess  compensation.   Section   28   as originally stood in the Act allowed interest at the rate  of 6 per centum per annum from the date of taking possession of the  land  till the date of payment of  excess  amount  into Court.   The following amendment of Section 28 was  inserted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

by Section 18 of the Amendment Act, 1984:          "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  into              Court before the date  of such expiry."      Section  30  of the Amendment Act,  1984  provided  for transitional provisions and sub-section (2) which dealt with Section 28 of the principle Act is reproduced as under :          "(2)  The provisions of sub-section (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          other passed by the High Court or Supreme Court  in          appeal against any such award under the  provisions          of the principal Act after the 30th                                                      403          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."      It    has   been   contended   on   behalf    on    the claimants/appellants that they are not claiming the enhanced rate of interest retrospectively, but they are claiming  the enhanced  rate  of  interest  on  the  enhanced  amount   of compensation  which  is now allowed by this Court.   Learned Counsel  submits that transitional provisions  contained  in Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, 1984 do not apply to the enhanced  amount of compensation allowed for the first  time by this Court.  It has been submitted that the case Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra) decided by the  constitution Bench dealt with the question of solatium only and not  with the   question  of  interest  on  the  enhanced  amount   of compensation.   It  has been further argued that  once  this Hon’ble Court decides that the claimants  were  entitled  to enhanced compensation and the possession of the land  having already  been taken as back as on 24.6.1968,  the  claimants are  entitled to enhanced rate of interest on  the  enhanced amount of compensation with effect from 24.6.1968.      On  the other hand, it has been contended on behalf  of the respondent that the reasoning as given for the  enhanced solatium  by the Constitution Bench in the case of Union  of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra) shall also apply to the case of  enhanced rate of interest also.  It has  been  submitted that  legislature by introducing special provisions  by  the Amendment  Act  of  1984 for the benefit  of  the claimants, clearly  laid  down  in  Section  30  of  the   transitional provisions that such benefit would be available only in case of  such  awards made  by the Collector or Court or  to  any order   passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in  appeal against  any such award between the 30th day of April,  1982 and  the commencement of the Act i.e. 24th September,  1984. It is, thus contended that in the present case the award was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

given  on 10.6.1968 and the reference Court gave the   award on  30.8.1972  as such no benefit of the  enhanced  rate  of interest  introduced  by the Amendment Act of  1984  can  be given to the claimants.      I   have  given  my  thoughful  consideration  to   the arguments  advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties.   So far  as  the case Union of India v. Raghubir  Singh  (supra) decided by the Constitution Bench is concerned, it                                                        404 dealt  with the question of enhanced solatium only  and  the question  of  allowing  enhanced rate  of  interest  on  the enhanced compensation was not considered nor decided in that case.  However, the Constitution Bench was dealing with sub- section (2) of Section 30 of the transitional provisions  of the  Amendment Act, 1984 which dealt with the provisions  of sub-section  (2)  of  Section  23  and  Section  28  of  the principal  Act  as amended by clause (b) of Section  15  and Section  18 of the Amendment Act, 1984.  Sub-section (2)  of Section 23 of the principal Act after amendment enhanced the amount  of  solatium from 15 to 30 per centum and  the  same reasoning  will apply to the provisions of Section 28  which dealt  with the provisions of enhanced rate of  interest  on the  amount  of enhanced compensation. However, there  is  a slight distinction in the case of award of solatium and  the award  of  interest  on the  amount  of  compensation.   The solatium is given on account of compulsory acquisition while the interest is awarded to compensate the delayed payment of the  amount of compensation to which the  claimants  becomes entitled  as soon as possession is taken from him  till  the payment is made in the Court.  Thus, so far as the grant  of solatium  for  compulsory  nature  of  the  acquisition   is concerned, it comes into operation on the date when award is given by the Collector or the Court and the rate of solatium would  be governed according to the rate prevailing  on  the date  of award made by the Collector or the Court.   But  so far  as  the  payment  of  compensation  is  concerned,  the grievance  continues till the entire amount is paid  to  the claimant.   Now,  if  we  consider  the  provisions  of  the Amendment  Act,  1984 and the decision of  the  Constitution Bench  in  Union  of India v.  Raghubir  Singh  (supra),  it becomes clear that the benefit of enhanced rate of  interest under Section 28 cannot be given till the coming into  force of  the  Amendment  Act, 1984, i.e.  24th  September,  1984. However, if we look to the statement of objects and  reasons of  the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No.  68) of 1984 it mentions that the individual and institutions who are unavoidably be deprived of their property rights in land need  to be adequately compensated for the loss  keeping  in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interest of  the community.  The ligislature by Amendment  Act,  1984 which  came into force on 24th September, 1984  has  clearly enhanced  the  rate of interest from 6 to 9 per  centum  and further  given power to the Court 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, to allow interest at the rate of 15 centum per  annum payable from the date of expiry                                                        405 of  the said period of one year.  Even if the provisions  of the Amendment Act, 1984 are applied prospectively in respect of   enhanced  rate  of  interest,  I  find  no  ground   or justification  not  to allow the rate of interest at  9  per cent per centum per annum on or after 24.9.1984.      Thus, hormonising these provisions and keeping in  view the  intention of the legislature in enhancing the  rate  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

interest  under the Amendment Act, 1984 and to  do  complete justice  between the parties, I consider that the  following direction would be proper to meet the ends of justice.   The claimants  in the present case are not entitled to  enhanced solatium  as  the  award  by  the  Collector  was  given  on 10.6.1968  and  the award by the reference  Court  was  also given  on  30.8.1972  and will only be entitled  to  15  per centum  on the enhanced amount of compensation.  This is  in accordance   with   the  ratio  of  the  decision   of   the Constitution  Bench  in  Union of India  v.  Raghubir  Singh (supra).  Now, so far as the rate of interest is  concerned, the  claimants would be entitled to interest on  the  enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from 24.6.1968 the date of taking possession up to 23.9.1984 and  at  9  per centum per annum  from  24.9.1984  till  the payment  of such amount in the Court.  As the  provision  of granting  interest  at the rate of 15 per centum  per  annum after  the date of expiry of a period of one year  from  the date on which possession is taken cannot be applied in terms and the amount of compensation has been enhanced now by this Court  and the State had no opportunity to make the  payment earlier,  I deem it proper to grant reasonable time  to  the State after which it may be liable to pay interest at 15 per centum per annum.  Thus, it is directed that if such  amount is not paid within three months from the date of this order, the  claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate  of 15 per centum per annum on such amount from the date of this order.      I,  therefore, allow the appeal in part and  set  aside the  order  of  the  High  Court  and  grant  the   enhanced compensation  to  the appellants and interest  as  indicated above.   In the circumstances of the case, both the  parties shall bear their own costs throughout.      PUNCHHI,  J. I have gone through the judgment  prepared by my learned brother N.M. Kasliwal, J. I agree to the  rate of  compensation  per  acre  to  be  awarded  for  the  land acquired.   I  also agree that  the claimants-appellants are entitled  to a solatium at the rate of 15 per centum only on                                                        406 the enhanced amount of compensation and not 30 per centum as claimed.  I differ, however, with respect, to  the  rate  of interest  proposed to be given to the  claimants-respondents by my learned brother on the compensation being enhanced  by us.   The amended Section 28 cannot come to the aid  of  the claimants-appellants   so  as to entitle them 9  per  centum interest  in  the  first year and  15  per  centum  interest thereafter till payment in Court.  The interpretation of the provision  or its harmonizing cannot be so elastic or go  to such  length  so as to violate its clear intendment  in  the drive  to  ’do  complete justice’ or to meet  ’the  ends  of justice’.  It is true though that the Constitution Bench  in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754 was  only required  to interpret the relevant provisions of  the  Land Acquisition Act as amended in the year 1984 in regard to the rate  of  solatium but the expression "any such  award"  was interpreted  in  the  context  to  exclude  the  benefit  of enhanced  solatium at the appellate level of the High  Court or  the  Supreme Court unless the appeal  arose  against  an award  of the Collector or of the Court of a District  Judge rendered  between  April 30, 1982 and  September  24,  1984. Here  instantly, neither the award of the Collector nor  the award  of  that  Court came within the  two  crucial  dates. Rather  the  Reference  was decided by  the  Court  on  30th August, 1972 much before the amendment and the appeal before the High Court too was decided on 24.6.1974 much before  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

amendment.   The High Court at its level and this  Court  as the  last  appellate, aree courts of correction and  in  the exercise  of  the appellate jurisdiction  are  empowered  to correct the award of the District Judge, as if the  decision made by it would have been the award of the District  Judge. The  interpretation of the expression "any such  award"  can have no two meanings, one towards the award of interest  and the  other  towards  solatium.  Whatever  be  the  intrinsic quality of payment on account of solatium and  contrastingly that of the interest payable, claims to both arise from  the date of taking possession till the payment is made in Court. If  the  governing  rate  of  solatium  would  be  that   as prevailing on the date of the award made by the Collector or the Court, a fortiorari the governing rate of interest would too  be the one prevailing on the date of the award made  by the  Collector  or  the Reference  Court.   Inescapably  the language  of  the statute and the spirit mandates  so.   The Amendment Act of 1984, with effect from September 24,  1984, has  enhanced rate of interest from 6 per centum and in  the given  situation  at  15  per  centum  but  only  to   those acquisitions  which commence from that date and  thereafter. The only exception is with regard to those                                                        407 acquisitions  which stood initiated and were pending at  the stages  conceived  of  by the  transitional  provisions.   I therefore regret my inability to agree with the views of  my learned  brother on this aspect.  Agreeing with him  on  the rate of interest proposed would mean militating against  the ratio  of  the Constitution Bench in Raghubir  Singh’s  case (supra)  and doing violence to the Statute.  I would  rather order  grant  of  6  per centum  interest  on  the  enhanced compensation  to the claimants-appellants from the  date  of taking possession of the land acquired till payment, denying myself  the exercise of ’harmonising’ these  provisions  and refraining  myself from discovering any hidden meaning  when the language of the statute is clear and plain and has  been interpreted in Raghubir Singh’s case (supra).  Therefore,  I am of the view that right from 24-6-1968, the date of taking possession till payment of such amount is made in Court, the claimants-appellants are entitled to 6 per centum per  annum as  interest.   Sequally  it is my  view  that  neither  the claimants-appellants are entitled to 9 per centum per  annum interest from 24-4-1984 till payment of such amount in Court nor is any time to be granted to the State to pay it  within three months at the pain of being liable to pay interest  at 15 per centum per annum after three months.      Therefore,  I agree that the appeal be allowed in  part and the Judgment and order of the High Court be set aside to that  extent.  The enhanced compensation be granted  to  the claimants-appellants  with 15 per centum solatium and 6  per centum  per annum interest as indicated above. I also  agree that both the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.      In  view  of  the separate judgments given  by  us  and disagreement  on one point, we pass the following  order  in the appeal.      The claimants-appellants would be entitled to  enhanced compensation as well as 15% solatium on the total amount  of compensation.   As regards the interest we both  agree  that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6  per centum   per  annum  up  23.9.1984.   However,  we  are   in disagreement  with  regard  to the rate of  interest  to  be allowed 6 or 9 per centum per annum from 24.9.1984 till  the actual  payment  in  the Court and also in  respect  of  the direction  that  if  such amount is not  paid  within  three months  from the date of this order, the claimants would  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

entitled  to interest at the rate of 6 per centum or 15  per centum per annum.      We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and set  aside the  judgment  of  the High Court to the  extent  of  points agreed.  As regards the points in                                                        408 disagreement,  we request the Hon’ble the Chief  Justice  to constitute a larger Bench to resolve the conflict.  In  view of  the fact that the point in controversy though short  one but  is likely to affect large number of cases,  we  request the  Hon’ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger  Bench at the earliest. R.P.                                  Appeal partly allowed.                                                        409