Supreme Court of India
O.A.K. Nachimuthu (Dead) By L. Rs. And ... vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, ... on 17 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: JT2001(3)SC384, (2001)9SCC582, AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2414, 2001 (9) SCC 582, 2001 AIR SCW 2385, (2001) 3 JT 384 (SC), 2001 (3) JT 384, 2001 (10) SRJ 500, (2001) 3 ALLMR 515 (SC), (2002) 1 LANDLR 241, (2001) 2 LACC 317, (2001) 4 SUPREME 441, (2001) 2 ICC 796, (2001) 43 ALL LR 256, (2001) 2 ALL WC 1121, (2001) 3 CURCC 18
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. An area of 83,474 Sq. Ft. of land situated on the outskirts of the town of Erode was acquired by the notification, D/-14th March, 1973 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') for the construction of LIG and MIG houses. Possession of the land was taken over in December, 1980. The Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.35 per Sq. Ft. vide the award, D/ - 30th December, 1980. Not satisfied with the amount offered, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and on such reference, the Land Tribunal, Erode, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 3.20 per Sq. Ft. vide the judgment, D/- 27th April, 1984. The appellants carried matter in appeal to the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Before the High Court as rioted in the judgment, Rs. 7.00 per Sq. Ft. was claimed. The High Court on assessing the material on record further enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 5.00 per Sq. Ft. Hence, this appeal by the claimants.
3. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri S. Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is that from the material on record it is clear that the rate of compensation fixed by the High Court is on the lower side the appellants are entitled to a higher rate of compensation at least Rs. 7.00 per Sq. Ft. He drew our attention to a judgment rendered by the High Court shortly before the decision in the present case, in which land acquired by a notification Issued on the same day, for the similar purpose was assessed at Rs. 8.50 per Sq. Ft.
4. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. We find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the judgment, the Court has assessed the compensation of Rs. 5.00 Sq. Ft. Neither the reason stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonably low and warrants interference by this Court. It is not possible to determine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guess work. We do not find that the judgment under challenge suffers from any serious illegality. The approach of the High Court is fair and reasonable. No interference with decision rendered by the High Court is called for.
5. Then, Shri Balakrishnan raised the question that the appellants are entitled to interest on the solatium amount which has not been granted by the Reference Court and also by the High Court. He drew our attention to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kapur Chand Jain (Dead) v. State Government of H.P. wherein the question of award of interest on solatium has been referred for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the different views expressed by different Benches of this Court, as noted in the order, Shri Balakrishnan also submitted that if it is held that Interest is to be paid on solatium also then this Court should grant leave to the claimant-appellants to make a claim for the interest on the solatium amount. The submission is reasonable. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge, we make it clear that, if it is held that claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium under law it will be open to the appellants in this case to raise a claim in that regard before the Land Acquisition Collector.
6. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.
7. No costs.