http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  9734 of 2003

PETITIONER: Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors.           

RESPONDENT: Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2003

BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15758 of 2000]

RAJENDRA BABU, J. :

       Leave granted.

       The case relates to acquisition of land measuring  3.37 acres in Mouja Pabiacheura in Kailashahar, State  of Tripura.  The notification under Section 4(1) of the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter, ’the Act’] was  issued on 24th December 1968 and on 13th October,  1969, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was  published.  The Land Acquisition Collector made his  award in October 1974 awarding Rs.12,000/- per acre  for ’nal land’ and Rs.9,000/- per acre for ’chara land’.   On 21.10.1974, the appellants filed an application for  reference under Section 18 of the Act for  enhancement of compensation.  On reference, the  learned L.A. Judge passed an award enhancing  compensation, allowing Rs.36,000/- per acre and also  granted 15% solatium, and interest under Section  23(2) of the Act in 1985.

       On appeal to the High Court, the claim for  enhancement was dismissed.  The High Court also  denied the appellants benefits under Section 23(2) of  the Act by relying on the decision of this Court in K.S.  Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala,AIR 1995 SC 1012.

       Before this Court, the main issues are as follows: (1)     Was the High Court justified in not awarding  enhanced compensation? (2)     Are the appellants entitled to solatium and  interest @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act?

Compensation payable on a piece of land  acquired under the Act is determined by taking into  account the market value of the land so acquired.  The  most reliable way to determine the market value is to  rely on the instances of sale of portions of the same  land as has been acquired or adjacent lands made  shortly before or the after the Section 4 notification .

Accordingly, the appellants had produced before  the High Court a certified copy of an award passed by  the learned L.A. Judge in another acquisition  proceedings.  In this case, the land was 150 ft. away

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

from the lands involved in the present proceedings.   In those proceedings, the learned L.A. Judge had  awarded Rs.1 lakh per acre as compensation.  This  was sought to be relied on by the appellants.  The  High Court chose not to rely on this document as no  evidence was led to show that both lands are similar  in nature having similar potentiality. While determining the market value of land, it  must be with reference to a piece of land which is  comparable to the present lands being acquired.  It  must be similar in potentiality and nature.  The  document which the appellants seek to rely on relates  to land which was acquired for the purpose of Assam- Agartala Road.  It was 3 feet higher than the acquired  land.  Further, the two lands were not proved to be  comparable in nature and potentiality.  Therefore, the  High Court is right in not relying on the said document  and disallowing the claim for enhancement for  compensation.

The second issue relates to the payment of  solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act.   Solatium is ’money comfort’ quantified by the statute  and given as a conciliatory measure for the  compulsory acquisition of land of the citizen, by a  welfare state such as India ".   Thus the statutory  amount of solatium is intended to compensate the  owner for his disinclination to part with his property.

The main aspect that arises for consideration is  the issue of the rate of solatium.  By an amendment in  1984, the rate was increased to 30% from the original  15% by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act.   This increase was given a limited retrospectivity, in  the sense that, the Amending Act, under Section  30(2) provided that the increased solatium is  applicable to those awards passed by the Collector or  the Court between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984.  Can it  be said that the present case would be entitled to this  additional benefit?

The award was made by the L.A. Collector way  before the said period i.e. in 1974.  However, the  reference Court passed its award after the said period,  i.e. in 1985.  Therefore, the issue is whether the  amendment would apply to a case pending during the  period of 2 years from 30.4.1982 to 29.9.1984.   

This precise issue has come up for consideration  a number of times before this Court.  In Union of  India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754, it was  held that the benefit of enhanced solatium would  apply only in cases where the award by the Collector  or Court is made between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984  or appeals against such awards decided by the High  Courts or this Court, whether rendered before  24.9.1984 or after that date.  This Court found that  the language of the Section ruled out the applicability  of the benefit to all pending proceedings.

In Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, AIR  1990 SC 981, the issue was whether the amendment  would apply to an award made subsequent to  24.9.1984 even though the acquisition proceedings  had commenced prior to the date.  This Court looked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

at the intention behind giving retrospective effect to  the amending Section.  If the literal interpretation is  taken, it was held, it will result in an anomaly.  In  order to avoid it, regard must be had to the purpose  of Section 30(2).  Consequently, this Court awarded  higher solatium even though the Reference Court  made the award in 1985.

Again in K.S. Paripoornan’s case [supra], this  Court widened the restricted interpretation given in  Raghubir Singh’s case.  It held that the enhanced  solatium would apply even to a case pending at the  time the Act came into force.

Following this train of thought, the benefit of  enhanced solatium would extend to the present case.   During the period between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984,  the reference was pending in the Reference Court.   The court’s award was passed in 1985.  Following the  above interpretation, the appellants are thus entitled  to enhanced solatium @ 30% and interest under  Section 23(2) of the Act.

The High Court in considering the case under  Section 23(1-A) of the Act has committed an error.   The appellants are entitled to solatium under Section  23(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reference by the  High Court to Section 23(1-A) is irrelevant in the  present case.

The learned counsel for respondents has  contended that solatium is not applicable because the  West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act,  1948, under which this present area falls, does not  contemplate it.  The provision of solatium is  mandatory and cannot be done away with.  It has  been held in a number of cases that the deprivation of  solatium by the West Bengal Land Development and  Planning Act is violative of Article 14 and Section 8(2)  of the Act is held to be invalid. (See : Monoranjan  Routh v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 Cal 487 and  Ramendranath v. State of W.B., AIR 1975 Cal  325).  Therefore, the contention that Section 8(2) of  the Act excludes compensation by way of solatium  does not hold good.

       In the light of the above, the compensation @  36,000/- per acre as awarded by the L.A. Judge is  upheld.  The solatium is to be paid @ 30% under  Section 23(2) of the Act and an interest @ 9% per  annum is also payable under Section 28 of the Act.   The award made by the Reference Court as affirmed  by the High Court shall stand modified accordingly and  the appeal is allowed to that extent.  No orders as to  costs.

L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T... ....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R. Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited#Collector of Centra l Excise, Chandigarh#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.#State of Bihar#2003- 11-25#25623#104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda#Shakutala Devi#2003-11- 03#25624#10906#R.C. LAHOTI###

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

Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  11483 of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh#Tej Bahadur Prajapat i & Ors.#2003-11-21#25625#11483#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  9130 of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.#Shapoorji Da ta Processing Ltd.#2003-11-18#25626#9130#CJI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  14178-14184 of 1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.R s., etc. etc.#State of Uttar Pradesh#2003-11-28#25627#14178-14184#Doraiswamy Raju### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.#Chico Ursula D’Souza#2003- 11-20#25628#1968#B.P. Singh### Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition (crl.)  199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey#The State of  West Bengal#2003-11-18#25629#199#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  20 of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan#State of Jharkhand#2003-11-28#2 5630#20#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan#State of Kerala#2003-11-14#25631#2 78#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  292 of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh.#Awadh Kishore Gupta a nd Ors.#2003-11-18#25632#292#DORAISWAMY RAJU### ###State of Punjab & Anr.#M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.#2003-11-20#25633##CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  331 of 1997#1997#Shriram#State of Madhya Pradesh#2003-11-24#256 34#331#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P.  & Ors.#Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally  & Ors.#2003-11-17#25635#3630-3631#CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  371-372 of 2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-1 1-27#25636#371-372#S.B. Sinha.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society#Dist. Officer, Ke rala Public Service Commission & Ors.#2003-11-17#25637#4075-4081#CJI.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.#Lalji Tandon (Dea d)#2003-11-03#25638#4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka#Puttaraja#2003-11-27#25639# 506#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  519-521 of 2003#2003#Goura Venkata Reddy                                    Vs.#State of Andhra Pradesh#2003-11-19#25640#519-521#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)  530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors.                                       #State of Kerala                                                #2003-11-17#2564 1#530-531#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs.                            #Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr.                          #2003-11-24#25642#7371#R .C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad,  District, Andhra Pradesh   #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors.                             #2003-11 -21#25643#9205-07#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.)  77-78 of 2003#2003#K. Anbazhagan                                              #The Superintendent of Police & ors.#2003-11-18#25644#77 -78#S.N. VARIAVA### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)  7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd.                                  #Collector of Central Excise                 #2003-11-19#25645#7868#CJI###