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

PETITIONER: NARAIN DAS JAIN (SINCE DECEASED)  BY L.RS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AGRA NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, AGRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/02/1991

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 389        1991 SCC  (4) 212  JT 1991 (1)   461        1991 SCALE  (1)215

ACT:        Land   Acquisition   Act,1894-Section 23(2)-Solatium- Payment of-Necessity for.        U.P.Town   Improvement   Act,   1919-Section   36(2)- Acquisition of land-Payment of Compensation-Whether  arises.        Words and Phrases: ’Solatium-Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:        Appellant’s  land  was  acquired  by  the  Agra  Town improvement  Trust under the provisions of  the  U.P.   Town Improvement    Act,   1919.  For  the  land  acquired,   the appellant  was paid a paltry sum. No  solatium  was  awarded as none was awardable under the Act. [391B].      The  appellant  sought  a reference  before  the  Nagar Mahapalika  Tribunal.  The Tribunal raised the  compensation to  Rs.1,45,839 and also awarded interest at the rate of  4- 1/2 percent.        Still  dissatisfied,  the appellant  moved  the  High Court   in  appeal. The  Nagarpalika  also  filed  a   cross appeal   against enhancement.   The High Court allowed   the appeal   of   the   appellant  and   further   enhanced  the compensation  by Rs.48,613 and the rate of interest   to   6 percent.  On the amount of Rs.48,613 solatium at the rate of 15%  was  awarded  by  the High  Court.  No  solatium    was however    awarded    on    the   slim    Of   Rs.  1,45,839 awarded   by  the  Tribunal,  on   the   ground   that   the appellant  had not made a grouse or laid any claim to it  in his  grounds   of   appeal. The  High  Court  negatived  the contention  of  the  appellant that  his  claim to  solatium was  not based  on  any  demand  at  his  instance  but   it was rather a statutory duty of the Court to grant it.      Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  (1)  Solatium,  as  the  word  goes,  is  "money comfort"   quantified  by  the  statute,  and  given  as   a conciliatory measure  for  the Compulsory acquisition of the land  of  the  citizen, by a welfare state   such  as  ours. [392D-E]                                                        390      (2)  The importance of the award of solatium cannot  be undermined   by   any  procedural  brocades.    It   follows automatically  the market value of the land acquired,  as  a shadow  would  to a man.  It springs up spontaneously  as  a

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

part  of  the  statutory growth  on  the  determination  and emergence  of  market value of the land acquired.   That  it falls  to be awarded by the Court "in every case" leaves  no discretion  with the court in not awarding it in some  cases and awarding in others. [393A-B]      Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [19741  2  S.C.C. 731,  referred  to.      (3)  Solatium  in the scheme of section  23(2)  of  the Land   Acquisition  Act  is part  of  the  compensation  and sections  28 and 34 of the said Act  Provide for payment  of interest on the amount of compensation. [394H-395A]      Periyar   &  Pareekanni  Rubbers  Ltd.  v.   State   of Kerala,  A.I.R.   1990 S.C. 2192, referred to.      (4)   Solatium   being  part   of   compensation   must fetch    statutory interest from the date  of  dispossession of  the  land  owner  tin  date  of payment. [395D]      Dr.   Shamlal  Narula  V.   Commissioner   of    Income Tax   Punjab, [1964] 7 SCR 668, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal  No.2327  of 1977.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  23.5-1975  of  the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 302 of 1966.      K.C. Jain and H.K. Puri for the Appellants.      A.P.S. Chauhan, Roopendra Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PUNCHHI,  J. This appeal by special leave  is  directed against the common judgment and order of the Division  Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated May 23, 1975.      The  appellant  herein (since deceased and  represented by  Legal                                                        391 Representatives) was the owner of 48613 sq.- yards of   land in  village Ghatwasan, Teh. Sadar, Dist. Agra. The same  was acquired  by the Agra  Town  Improvement  Trust  under   the provisions   of  the   U.P. Town  Improvement   Act,   1919. Notification    under   section 36(2)   of    the  aforesaid Act.  which  is  analogous to  section   4   of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894  was  issued  on  29-7-1950  and  the acquisition   proceedings culminated  by  an  award  of  the Land    Acquisition   Collector,     followed    by   taking possession  of  the  land  from  the  appellant   on   11-3- 1953.   For the land acquired, the appellant  was   paid   a partly   sum  of   Rs.   1344-2  annas   &,   6   paise   as compensation.   No   solatium  was  awarded   as   none  was awardable under the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919.      Feeling   dissatisfied   the   appellant    sought    a reference    under  section 18  of  the   Land   Acquisition Act   before  the  Nagar  Mahapalika Tribunal,  a   creature of    the   U.P.   Town   Improvement  Act,    1919.     The appellant  asserted  before  the  Tribunal  that   he should have    been  allowed a rate of Rs.8 per sq. yard  for   the acquired  land.  The  Tribunal partly accepted the claim  of the   appellant   by  its  order  dated   5-11-1965  raising compensation  to the rate of Rs.3 per sq.  yard   and   thus held  the  appellant entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,45,889 inclusive   of   the   sum  of  about   Rs.   1344   already received   by  him.  The  Tribunal  also   awarded  interest on  the  amount  due at the rate  of   4-1/2   percent   per annum   with  effect  from 11-3-1953,  the  date  of  taking possession of the  land  till  its payment.

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

    Still  dissatisfied,  the appellant  moved   the   High Court  of  Allahabad  in  appeal; a  forum  provided   under the    U.P. Town   Improvement (Appeals)  Act,   1920,   but on    grounds    analogous    to    section    100      CPC. Correspondingly  the  Nagar   Mahapalika   also   filed    a cross   appeal against enhancement.  The  Tribunal  disposed of   both   the   appeals  by  a  common    judgment.    The appellant    was   awarded  enhanced    compensation at  the rate of Rs.4 per sq. yard. Consequently  an  additional  sum of Rs.48613 was held  due  to  him.  The  High  Court   also changed   the  rate Of  interest  from  4-1/2  percent   per annum   to  6  percent  per   annum, correcting  the   error committed   by   the   Tribunal.   The   claim    of     the appellant  to solatium at the  rate  of  15  per   cent   on the   sum   awarded  uptill   the   Tribunal’s   level   was rejected   as   the appellant   had-not claimed   the   same before   the   Tribunal   and  had  not  made    a    grouse thereof  in  his  memorandum  of  appeal  before  the   High Court.   So    on  the sum of  Rs.  1,45,839   assessed   as market    value   by   the   Tribunal,   no  Solatium    was awarded.   On   the  amount  of   Rs.48,613   enhanced    by the  High  Court, solatium at the  rate  of  15   per   cent was   awarded  by  the High  Court,  and  interest   thereon was  also  awarded  from   11-3-1953.                                                        392      the date of taking possession till  its  payment.   The appeal   of   the  Nagar Mahapalika   was   dismissed.   The appellant  alone  who  is  before   us   has challenged  the common  judgment  of the High Court.      No  dispute herein has been  raised  to   any   further increase  in  the market  value  of  the  land.  The   claim vehemently put   forth   is   with regard to the solatium of 15   per   cent  on  the  market  value  of  the   land  and which  claim,  partly  has been  negatived   by   the   High Court.  It  is  not disputed that if the claim is valid, the rate  of  solatium  would  be  15  percent  of  the   market value.  Though  a  faint  attempt was  made  to  raise claim to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent  and  interest  to  9 per   cent per  annum  in  terms  of  the  amendments   made in  the   Land   Acquisition Act,  1894  by  means  of   Act No.  68   of   1984, but   such   claim   was  abandoned  in the   next   breath.  So  we  are thus concerned   only   to the  claim of solatium which has been declined by  the  High Court.      Section 23(2) of  Land  Acquisition  Act,  as  it  then was,   provided that in addition to the  market   value   of the  land, as  provided  in  sub-section (1) of section  23, the  court shall  in  every  case  award  a  sum  of  rupees fifteen   per   centum    on   such    market    value    in consideration  of  the compulsory  nature  of   acquisition. Solatium,    as  the   word   goes,    is  "money  comfort", quantified by the  statute,  and  given  as  a  conciliatory measure  for  the compulsory acquisition of  the   land   of the  citizen,  by  a welfare state such as ours. The concern for  such a  citizen  was  voiced  by the   Law   Commission of   India   in  its  Report submitted  in  1957   on    the Need  for  Reform in the Land Acquisition  by  observing  as follows:           "We are not also in  favour  of  omitting  Section           23(2)  so  as to  exclude  solatium  of  15%   for           the   compulsory  nature   of the acquisition.  It           is   not   enough  for  a  person   to   get   the           market  value of the  land  as   compensation   in           order  to  place himself in a position similar  to           that  which  he  could  have occupied  had   there

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

         been  no  acquisition;  he  may have   to spend  a           considerable    further   amount    for    putting           himself   in the same position as  before.....  As           pointed  out  by Fitzgerald the community  has  no           right to enrich itself by deliberately taking away           the  property  of  any  of  its  members  in  such           circumstances    without    providing     adequate           compensation  for it.  This principle has been  in           force  in India ever since the Act of  1870.   The           Select  Committee which examined the Bill of  1883           did  not think it necessary to omit the  provision           but  on the other hand transferred it  to  Section           23."                                                        393      The   importance  of  the  award  Of  solatium   cannot be    undermined  by any procedural blockades.   It  follows automatically  the  market   value of  the  land   acquired, as   a   shadow   would   to   a   man.  It   springs     up spontaneously  as  a  part  of  the  statutory   growth   on the  determination and emergence of market value of the land acquired.  It  follows  as  a matter of course  without  any impediment.   That it falls to be awarded by the  Court  "in every  case"  leaves  no discretion with the  court  in  not awarding it in some cases and awarding in others.  Since the award  of  solatium is in consideration  of  the  compulsory nature of acquisition, it is a hanging mandate for the court to  award  and supply the omission at any  stage  where  the Court gets occasion to amend or rectify.  This is the spirit of the provision, wherever made.      It  is pertinent to  note  here  that  the   claim   of the  appellant  to solatium was not entertainable before the Land  Acquisition  Collector,  taking  proceedings  of   the acquisition  under  the  U.P. Town Improvement  Act  in  the absence  of a provision allowing it.  Rather the  amendments and modifications set out in the schedule  attached  to  the U.P.Town Improvement Act made read that way.  The payment of solatium  as  awardable  under section  23(2)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act was specifically not made applicable to  the land  acquired  under the U.P. Town Improvement  Act.   Such amendment  to  the  schedule, however,  being  violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution was struck down by this Court on  14-12-1973 in Om Prakash & Another v. State of U.P.  and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, [1974] 2 SCC 731.   This Court  took   the   view  that  if   the   government  could acquire land for a Mahapalika or other local body by  resort either  to  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  or  the  U.P.  Town Improvement  Act,  it would in the former case have  to  pay solatium  and in the latter case not at all and which  would lead  to discrimination, and consequently granted relief  of solatium to the land owner whose land was acquired.  On  the law laid down by this Court, the High Court rightly took the view  that since the amendments made to the schedule to  the Town  Improvement  Act  had  gone out  of  the  way  of  the appellant,  the  compensation due to him would  have  to  be assessed in accordance with the provisions of section 23  of the  Land  Acquisition  Act.  Holding  so,  the  High  Court awarded  solatium on the amount enhanced by it and for  that part rightly.      The denial of the solatium to the appellant on the  sum awarded  by  the  Tribunal is based on  the  reasoning  that firstly   the  Collector  had not awarded solatium  and  the appellant  while taking the matter to the Tribunal  had  not raised such claim.  Secondly  after  the   order   of    the Tribunal  the appellant when taking the matter to  the  High Court in

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

                                                      394 appeal,  had not made a grouse and laid claim to it  in  his grounds of appeal. The High Court, it appears was even  then prepared to grant solatium to the appellant and offered  the appellant to seek amendment of the grounds of appeal but the appellant  declined  to do so asserting that  his  claim  to solatium was not based on any demand at his instance but was rather  a  statutory  duty  of the Court  to  grant  it,  as otherwise,  the  mandate of section 23(2) would  fail.   The High Court negatived such contention.      We  do not appreciate the distinction made by the  High Court  in this regard.  The appellant had all the  same  not pleaded  for  grant  of solatium in the  grounds  of  appeal before    the   High   Court   while   claiming     enhanced compensation,   and  yet  the  High  Court  felt   that   it was under the statutory  duty  to  grant  solatium  on   the amount   enhanced  by it. The High Court did not  shut   out the  claim  of  the  appellant  on  the ground that  he  had not   asked   for   it  specifically in   the   grounds   of appeal.   If  that  is  so,  the  legal  error   which   was otherwise   patent  needed to be rectified   by   the   High Court  in  favour of  the  appellant; more  so  when   there was   a   cross    appeal   of    the    Nagar    Mahapalika before  it  and resort could be had to the   provisions   of Order   41   Rule   33 C.P.C.  Additionally,  the  claim  to solatium   arose   in   this  regard  on  the  basis  of  Om Prakash’s   case   (supra)  on  14-12-1973   by  which   the provisions    of   the   U.P.    Town    Improvement     Act whereunder   solatium   was withheld were struck down,   and on  that  date  the appeal  of  the  appellant  against  the order   of  the  Tribunal  dated  5-11-1965   was    pending before the  High  Court.  The  claim  to  solatiun  surfaced and   compulsory acquistition  of  the  land  but  also   on the   law  on  the  subject  being declared by  this   Court in   Om   Prakash’s  case  (supra).  We  are  thus   of  the view   that   the  High  Court  should  have   measured  the claim   of   the  appellant   to   solatium   on   the   sum awarded   by  the  Tribunal  with   the same  yardstick   as to   the   sum  awarded  by  it  and  modified   in   decree accordingly.  We have  thus  no  hesitation   in   upsetting the   judgment   and order  of  the  High  Court   in   this regard  and  award  to  the  appellant solatium at the  rate of  15%  on  the  entire  market value  of  the  land, which would  include  a sum of Rs.  1,45,839  left   out   by  the Tribunal   and the High Court. The appellant further   shall be  entitled  to  the  interest at the rate of 6% per  annum from   11-3-1953,  the  date  of  taking   possession,  till the  date of payment  of  the  sum  due  as  solatium.   The appeal shall stand allowed accordingly.      Before  parting with the judgment, we need  to  clarify that  solatium  in the scheme of section 23(2) of  the  Land Acquisition  Act is part of the compensation and section  28 and 34 of the said Act  pro-                                                        395 vided  payment  of interest on the amount  of  compensation. This  Court recently in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers  Ltd. v.  State of Kerala, AIR  1990  SC  2192  has   ruled   that compensation   is  recompense  or   reparation to  the  loss caused to the owner of the land and that payment of interest on  solatium  is to recompensate the owner of the  land  the loss of user of the land from the date of taking  possession till date of payment into Court.  Therein the land owner was held entitled to interest on solatium).  Attention, however, may  be  invited to Dr. Shamlal Narula  V.  Commissioner  of Income-tax Punjab, [1964] 7 SCR 668.  The quality of the sum

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

paid as interest was held somewhat different.  It was  ruled therein  that the statutory interest paid under the  Act  is interest paid for the delayed payment of compensation amount and in no  event  can  that  be  described  as  compensation for   owner’s   right  to retain possession, for he  has  no right to retain possession after possession was taken  under sections  16 and 17 of the Act.  The quality of the  receipt of  interest  can  be  left by us  here,  whether  it  be  a recompense for the loss of user of land or is a sum paid for the delayed payment of compensation.  Solatium being part of compensation must fetch statutory interest from the date  of dispossession of the land owner till date of payment.      Accordingly,  we allow this appeal and direct that  the appellant shall also be paid solatium at the rate of 15%  on the left out amount of Rs. 1,45,839 and interest at the rate of  6% per annum thereon from 11-3-1953, the date of  taking possession till date of payment, and that too with costs. R. S. S.                                 Appeal allowed.                                                        396