Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Kodarbhai Jenabhai on 27 September, 2001
JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, J.
1. The State, being aggrieved by an award made by the Reference Court on 27th January, 1998 awarding compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1800/per Are with other statutory benefits, has preferred these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2. The facts, in brief, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are as under:
The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, made proposal for acquisition of agricultural lands of village Sandheli, Taluka Thasra, District Kheda for the purpose of Narmada Project (Mynore Canal). The Notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act were issued on different dates. Awards were made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on different dates determining the market price at the rate of Rs. 1.50ps. per sq.mtr. The claimants, being aggrieved by determination of the market price and not agreeable to the offer, sought References and on different dates, References were made in different cases. The Reference Case Numbers, the dates of notifications under Sections 4 & 6of the Act, the dates of award are as under:
---------------------------------------------------------
L.A.R. Date of Date of Date of Nos.
Notification Notification Award u/s. 4 u/s. 6 582/94 to 08/11/89 17/01/91 16/11/92 585/94 608/94 to 08/11/89 17/01/91 11/12/92 617/94 660/94 to 11/11/89 17/01/91 11/12/92 669/94 670/94 to 08/11/89 17/01/91 16/11/92 679/94 1950/94 to 09/05/90 05/04/91 29/03/93 1953/94 1882/94 to 02/07/90 05/09/91 17/08/93 1892/94 2071/94 to 11/02/91 01/06/92 19/11/93 2077/94 2177/94 to 08/11/89 13/01/91 25/09/92 2180/94 ---------------------------------------------------------
3. There is no dispute that the Special Land Acquisition Officer followed the procedure contained under the Act for acquiring the lands and, therefore, procedural aspect is not required to be discussed. Suffice it to say that the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market price at the rate of Rs. 1.50ps. per sq.mtr. while the claimants claimed Rs. 10,000/- per Are and also sought other benefits. The Reference Court on appreciation of evidence held that the claimants are entitled to get the market price at the rate of Rs. 1800/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) per Are and other statutory benefits.
4. On behalf of the State, a question is raised by the learned AGP that the Reference Court has committed an error in determining the market price. According to the learned AGP, before the Reference Court though evidence of total yield of paddy crop was 3000kgs. per hectare and in some cases, less than 2500kgs. per hectare, the Reference Court decided the case on the basis that the total yield of paddy crop was 5000kgs. per hectare. According to the learned AGP appearing in these matters, even if the yield of paddy crop is taken into consideration, the market price would be less than Rs. 18/-. According to him, it would come in between Rs. 14/- to Rs. 16/-.
5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got produced exhibit 18 to show that the agriculturists used to take various crops and used to pay charges for irrigation. The registers at exhibits 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 give necessary details such as, Survey Numbers, area, names of the owners/cultivators, measurement of fields for cultivation of particular crops, charges for irrigation per hectare, local fund, etc. Reading the documents, the Reference Court held that the agriculturists used to take crops of wheat, tobacco, cotton, millet, rice, castor, etc. Similar registers were produced for kharif-crops vide exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Thus, from the aforesaid record, it is clear that different crops in different seasons were being cultivated.
6. On behalf of the claimants, Dhanabhai Somabhai Solanki was examined. He has stated on oath that the lands are very fertile and for the purpose of irrigation, they get water from Vaghroli and Sandheli Irrigation Scheme. Over and above it, they also get water from tube-wells. He has deposed about various crops and the fact that 10% to 15% amount is required for expenditure. The bills issued by Gujarat Electricity Board were also produced to show the consumption of electricity for drawing water. On the record of the case, exhibit 37 is also produced showing the price of various crops for the year 1989-90 offered by Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kapadvanj. The list includes various crops, vegetables, etc. The agriculturists also produced on record village Form No. 7/12 vide exhibits 40 to 88 to show that the different crops were being cultivated by them. Mr.A.J.Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants has placed before us details of exhibits 40 to 88 indicating Survey Numbers, total area, crops for the years 1989-90 & 1990-91 covered by each exhibit. Reading these documents, it appears that the cultivators used to cultivate kodara, cotton, maize, guvar, adad, variyari (fennel seed), isabgul etc. The learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that with a view to get better crop, it is not advisable to cultivate the crop of the same type continuously. It is known that for better yield from the field in different seasons, different crops are being cultivated and, therefore, pattern of crops would change. It is for this reason, an average is required to be taken for arriving at a conclusion as to what would be the yield per hectare. Talati-cum-Mantri, a government officer, is maintaining record in Form No. 7/12. He has indicated details of the crops. Reading the same, it appears that the crops of cotton, tobacco, maize, kodara, wheat, tuver, millet, vegetables etc. were being cultivated. On record, on behalf of the claimants, certificates issued by Kapadvanj Cooperative Cotton Sale & Ginning Society Limited are produced to show the price offered for cotton crop, known as `Shanker-4'. In the instant case, vide exhibit 90/3, a magazine is produced, which was issued by the Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation Limited, a State Government Undertaking, to substantiate the contention raised on behalf of the claimants.
7. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel towards the documents placed on the record and it was submitted that the documents are placed with a view to indicate as to what was the demand made by the Irrigation Department. If these documents are perused, it would be clear that the cultivators were getting facilities of irrigation and were taking different crops. The documents at exhibits 32, 33, 34 are produced for the said purpose. Vide exhibits 37 & 38, average price lists issued by the Kapadvanj Agriculture Produce Market Committee have been produced. Reading the documents, it appears that monthwise statement is prepared by Agriculture Produce Market Committee for different crops including vegetables. The said Produce Market Committee has given a certificate vide exhibit 89 showing the price determined for cotton.
8. One Mohanbhai Parsottambhai Brahmbhatt was examined, vide exhibit 91, in Land Acquisition Case No. 584 of 1994. With the consent of the parties, the said evidence was treated as evidence in this case. Shri Mohanbhai Brahmbhatt was working as a Joint Director (Agriculture), and is a graduate in Agriculture Science. He has seen the lands of the entire District. He has completely corroborated the say of the claimants with regard to various crops, vegetables, fruits, etc. grown in the agricultural lands. He has drawn a statement at exhibit 93 to indicate as to what would be the net profit in case of different types of crops.
9. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award has observed that the agricultural lands are irrigated. There are facilities of primary school, electricity, private dispensaries, telephone etc. The village is connected through asphalt road. Dakore (well known home town of Lord Ranchhodrai) is about 9kms. and is connected with road.
The cultivators are cultivating cotton, paddy, tobacco, millet etc. Irrigation facilities are provided through Vaghroli & Sandheli Irrigation Scheme. There are private bores for irrigation. It was also pointed out that in view of irrigation facility, varieties of crops are taken by the farmers.
4th October, 2001
10. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, has taken us through the evidence of the said witness Mohanbhai Brahmbhatt. On the basis of exhibit 92, a statement prepared by the said witness, cost of production is also taken out for certain crops. The said expert in the statement has dealt with other items with which the present cultivators are not concerned and, therefore, from the said list, the crops being cultivated are taken into consideration while preparing separate statements on the basis of exhibit 92.
11. For the crops such as tobacco, paddy, wheat, bajara, cotton, variyari (fennel seed), statements are prepared indicating as to what would be the yield per hectare and what would be the expenditure in percentage. In view of exhibit 92, it can be stated as under:
(i) Tobacco, if grown, per hectare total cost of production would be Rs. 7800/-; gross income would be Rs. 44,000/- and net profit would be Rs. 36,200/-.
Thus, there would be expenditure of 17.72%.
(ii) Paddy, if grown, per hectare, total cost of production would be Rs. 7500/-; total yield would be 3000Kgs. per hectare and market rate as indicated would be Rs. 100/- per 20Kgs.
Considering exhibits 91 & 92, income from hay/grass of paddy is required to be taken into consideration.
There would be 8000 bunches in all and considering Rs. 60/- per 100 bunches, price comes to Rs. 4800/-. This income is not reflected in the statement. Considering the evidence, yield of paddy is required to be considered in the following manner:
Total production of paddy would be 8000Kgs. per hectare and cost of fertilizer would be Rs. 5000/-. Considering the price at the rate of Rs. 100/- per mound (1mound=20Kgs.), gross income from paddy would be Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, total income from paddy comes to Rs. 44,800/- including income from hay/grass. Out of which, Rs. 7500/- towards expenditure and Rs. 5000/- towards fertilizers are required to be deducted, hence, net profit would be Rs. 32,300/-. Thus, cost of cultivation comes to 27.90% per hectare.
iii) So far wheat is concerned, from the documents on record, it appears that the total cost of production would be Rs. 6325/- and yield would be 2500Kgs. per hectare. Market Rate is Rs. 125/- per 20Kgs.
Income from hay/grass of wheat is also required to be taken into consideration.
Considering that, there would be 300 mounds (6000Kgs.) wheat per hectare and the cost of fertilizer Rs. 4000/- and the market rate of wheat at Rs. 125/- per mound, total gross income would be Rs. 37,500/-. If Rs. 1500/- towards income from of hay/grass added, it comes to Rs. 39,000/-. From the said income, expenditure of Rs. 6325/and cost of fertilizer Rs. 4000/- are required to be deducted. Thus, net profit would be Rs. 28,675/per hectare. Hence, cost of cultivation in percentage is 26.47%.
iv) So far as Bajara is concerned, on the basis of the documents produced on record, it can be said that exact figures are not given. On the basis of evidence, it can be said that production would be 127.5mounds to 148.27mounds (1mound=20Kgs.). Income from hay/grass of Bajara would be Rs. 1500/-. Considering minimum and maximum output, as indicated, the price at the rate of Rs. 80/- per 20Kgs., comes to Rs. 10,200/to Rs. 11,900/-. Considering an additional income from hay/grass at Rs. 1500/-, net profit is required to be considered after deduction of Rs. 3180/- towards cost. Hence, net profit would be Rs. 8520/to Rs. 10,220/- and cost of production comes to 27.17% - 23.73%; average would be 25.45%.
v) So far as cotton is concerned, on the basis of expert's evidence, it is pointed out that cost of production of cotton per hectare would be Rs. 9000/-. Total yield of cotton would be 2500Kgs. per hectare. Rate available to the farmers is Rs. 1405/- to Rs. 1480/- per 100Kgs. as per the price indicated by Kapadvanj Agriculture Produce Market Committee. Gross Income comes to Rs. 36,450/-. Out of which, cost of production of Rs. 9000/- will have to be deducted and thus, net profit comes to Rs. 27,450/-. Thus, expenditure would be 24.69%.
vi) So far as Vaiyari (Fennel Seed) is concerned, on the basis of evidence, it is pointed out that total cost of production would be Rs. 6500/- & yield would be 1500Kgs. per hectare. Considering the rate at Rs. 200/- per 20Kgs., calculation is required to be made. In view of the evidence, there would be 35 mounds variyari per bigha, which would be in the vicinity of 148.75 mounds per hectare. In all considering the size of the field namely, one hectare, there would be production weighing about 2975Kgs. Considering the market price at the rate of Rs. 15.38ps., total income would be Rs. 45,755/-. Out of which, Rs. 6500/- will have to be deducted and thus, there would be 14.20% of expenditure.
As indicated earlier, the cultivators would be changing their crops pattern every season and, therefore, average will have to be taken out of expenditure in percentage. On the basis of data produced on record by the Government, if an average is taken out, it comes to 27.73%.
12. It is in view of the evidence, which is placed on record, Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants, submitted that the Reference Court has committed a serious error in deducting 50% from gross total income towards the expenditure for taking out net profit. Mr. Patel also submitted that if no evidence was led by the claimants or by the State Government, the Court could have deducted 50%, but, when there is positive evidence, it is not open to deduct 50%. He invited our attention to the impugned judgment wherein the Reference Court expressed an opinion that when the claimants have not produced any sale transaction on behalf of the parties on record, then, evidence of the claimants on the basis of total yield and its multiplier method be considered. The Reference Court, considering the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of STATE OF GUJARAT vs. RAMA RANA & OTHERS reported in 1997 G.L.R.(3) SC 1954, was of the view that 50% of the gross income should be deducted so as to arrive at the net profit. Our attention is also drawn by the learned Counsel for the claimants to para-5 of the judgement of the Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rama Rana (Supra) in which the Apex Court pointed out as under:
"It is undoubtedly true that one of the methods of determination of compensation in absence of best evidence, namely, sale deeds, is the realised value of the crop. Normally, they should have produced the statistics from the Agriculture Department as to the nature of the crops and the prices prevailing at that time. But unfortunately, neither claimants nor the Government took any step to adduce the best evidence. It is a fact that the Government has failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf. However, we cannot reject the oral evidence of witness on that ground alone. The Court has statutory duty to the society subject the oral evidence to great scrutiny, applying the test of normal prudent man, i.e., whether he would be willing to purchase the land at the rates proposed by the Court. On the touch-stone of this, the Court should evaluate the evidence objectively and dispassionately and reach a finding of compensation. The reference Court has accepted the evidence of the Sarpanch to be that of a reliable person. Therefore, we proceed on that premise. The appropriate multiplier should be of 10 years as settled by several judgement of this Court. Necessarily, 50% of the net value towards cultivation expansion requires to be deducted. ..."
12.1 Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Court was at pains to note that `neither the claimants nor the Government took any step to adduce the best evidence'. The Court pointed out its duty to the society. In para-4 of the Judgment, the Apex Court took a note that `the Reference Court found that the witnesses exaggerated the yield and that it would be common knowledge that expenditure would be involved in raising and harvesting the crops and that, therefore, 50% of the value of the crops realised would go toward cultivation expenses. Therefore, deduction of 1/3 was not correct in determining the compensation of the lands on the basis of the yield.' There was no cogent and convincing evidence with regard to the expenditure. Even there was observation made by the Reference Court that the claimants exaggerated the yield.
12.2 In the instant case, what we find is that the claimants have produced on record number of documents, that is to say, 7/12 Form of each claimant indicating the nature of the crop being cultivated, record of irrigation supporting the say of the claimants. Over and above, the Government's expert evidence is there to point out as to what would be the amount required to be spent for cultivating a particular type of crop. It is on the basis of the expert's evidence, the Court has to determine the yield and the net income. There is evidence to show as to what one would get for particular type of crop.
12.3 The learned AGP submitted that expert was not examined in the instant case. It is required to be noted that the Government's expert, namely Mohanbhai P. Brahmbhatt, was examined in Land Acquisition Case No. 584 of 1994 vide exhibit 37. He deposed before the Court for the nature of the lands, fertility, yield, expenditure, etc. situated in Kheda District and particularly in Thasara Taluka. The lands in question are situated in Thasara Taluka. The learned AGP appearing before the Reference Court signed the pursis exhibit 90, inter alia, requesting the Court to treat the same as evidence in this case. Therefore, with consent of the learned AGP appearing in the matter, evidence of Mohanbhai was treated as evidence in this case vide exhibit 91 along with his report, exhibit 92, and other documents referred in his evidence. It is, therefore, not correct to state that the evidence cannot be read in this case. If the Government Pleader would have objected, the claimants would have requested the Court to issue summons to the expert and he would have been examined in this case also. In view of the facts that the lands are situated in the same Taluka, the lands of Taluka were seen by the witness Mohanbhai, and in the area, what would be the yield, amount of expenditure, etc. as stated earlier, should be taken into consideration. There cannot be any objection at this stage.
13. In view of the evidence which is produced on the record, the learned advocate submitted that it is not proper to say that no evidence has been produced and, therefore, 50% amount should be deducted from the total income. Mr. Patel submitted that the question of compensation to be determined depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and can never be regarded as a binding precedent. He has further submitted that according to a well settled theory of precedent, every decision contains three basic ingredients: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) Judgment based on the combined effect of (i) & (ii) above. He further submitted that for the purpose of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient no. (iii) is the material element is the decision for it determines finally their rights and liabilities in relation to the subject matter of the action. It is the judgment that estops the parties from reopening the dispute. He submitted that for the purpose of the doctrine of precedent, ingredient no.2 is the vital element in the decision. This indeed is the ratio decidendi. It is not every thing said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes precedent. The only thing in a judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. Mr. Patel submitted that in the case of Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Limited vs. Haynes 1959 AC 743, it was laid down that the ratio decidendi may be defined as a statement of law applied to the legal problems raised by the facts as found, upon which the decision is based. The other two elements in the decision are not precedents. The judgment is not binding (except directly on the parties themselves) nor are the findings of the facts. He submitted that even where the direct facts on an earlier case appear to be identical to those of the case before the Court, the Judge is not bound to draw the same inference as drawn in the earlier case.
14. He invited our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in case of PRAKASH AMICHAND SHAH vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS reported in A.I.R. 1986 SC 468 wherein the Apex Court in para 26 pointed out as under:
"... Before embarking upon the examination of these decisions we should bear in mind that what is under consideration is not a statute or a legislation but a decision of the Court. A decision ordinarily is a decision on the case before the Court while the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently. Hence, while applying the decision to a later case, the Court which is dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. ..."
When there is a question of compensation for compulsorily acquired land, compensation must be equivalent to the property and it should not be illusory or should not be determined by the application of irrelevant principles. When in the facts of the case, evidence was adduced by the parties to point out before the Court as to what would be the expenditure per hectare and what would be gross income and net income, the Court was required to take into consideration the evidence placed before it. In the instant case, in our opinion, the Reference Court has not taken pain to analyse the evidence which was placed before it for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion as to what should be the market price of the land? In our opinion, therefore, on the basis of an average, amount of expenditure, which one would require to spend, ought to have been deducted from the gross income. The Government expert's opinion is clear as to what would be the gross income and what would be the cost and, therefore, when there is positive evidence, it is required to be accepted. A note of caution is required to be taken.
15. There is no dispute with regard to the facilities available to the cultivators, such as irrigation and Agriculture Produce Market Committee to take care of the cultivators for getting better yield by taking three crops in a year and offering better price. The Reference Court, considering the oral evidence which it has analysed, has arrived at the conclusion that the market price would be Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court also considered the evidence of Mohanbhai, an expert, and survey made by an authenticate authority namely `Krishi Jivan Silver Jubilee' for considering minimum average of crops per hectare per year and the price that would be fetched in view of the certificates, exhibits 37 & 38 issued by Kapadvanj Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The Reference Court examined the matter considering various types of crops being cultivated and other evidence such as village Form No. 7/12. The Reference Court took the minimum yield. The Reference Court for the purpose of finding out an average considered crops of tobacco and paddy, cotton and paddy, paddy and wheat in combination. The Reference Court observed as under:
"I am of the opinion that if we consider even minimum yield per hectare, it was at least Rs. 39,000/- per hectare. Because most probably farmers used to exaggerate the produce for getting the maximum compensation. Even on that point after deducting 10% from the total average yield, so far as to get the fair and just market price, it will come to Rs. 39,000/- - Rs. 3000/- = Rs. 36,000/- per hectare. Here in this case, most of the farmers were producing paddy crop and wheat and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the total average yield of the acquired lands of village Sandheli must be more than Rs. 36,000/per hectare."
15.1 In view of appreciation of the evidence, the Reference Court assessed the yield on the basis of two crops in a year and considering 50% towards expenses, determined market price by giving 10 multiplier.
15.2 If the evidence would have been thrashed out, the decision of determination of market price would have been proper. Considering types of crops in different seasons, if average price is taken out considering crops of tobacco, paddy, wheat, bajra (millet), cotton and variyari including the income from hay/grass, net income would be Rs. 28,875/- per hectare per year. Even if income from hay/grass is not considered, the net total income per hectare per year would be Rs. 27,625/-. Considering multiplier of 10, price per sq.mtr. would be certainly higher than the fixed by the Reference Court i.e., Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. On behalf of the State, it could not be pointed out as to how the Reference Court has awarded higher price than the real.
16. It is required to be noted that in the instant case there is expert's evidence on record and even considering that evidence, expenditure is not more than 22.73%, i.e., 23% on taking the average of various crops. Therefore, in our opinion, if the expenditure as indicated in the evidence is considered, the market price would be more. In the instant case, in our opinion, the State is not in a position to state as to how the Reference Court has committed an error while calculating the market price on the yield basis.
17. It is required to be noted that in the instant case, attention of the Reference Court was drawn to the Land Acquisition Case No. 1604 of 1994 wherein, notification under Section 4 was published in July 1990 for acquiring the lands situated at village Lasundra, which is at 3.00kms. distance from the village Sandheli. The awards were made for different groups of matters in the year 1993. Ultimately, the Reference Court held that the claimants would be entitled to claim Rs. 19/- per sq.mtr. First Appeal Nos. 4300/98 to 4501/98 were filed in this Court by the State Government through Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Division Bench (Coram : M.R.Calla & R.P.Dholakia, JJ., on 07/05/1999) had an occasion to consider the similar nature of evidence which is produced in these matters, namely, village form no. 7/12, price list issued by Kapadvanj Cotton Sale & Ginning Society, certified copy of deposition of Mohanbhai Brahambhatt (whose evidence is placed on record of this case) and the Schedule List given by the witness showing the actual yield. On appreciation of evidence, the Court held that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq.mtr. is neither excessive nor disproportionate. The crop pattern was the same. It may be required to be noted that village Lasundra is situated at a distance of 3.00kms. for which, there is no dispute. It is required to be noted that boundaries of both the villages are common. The map is produced on record vide exhibit 98 for this purpose. The decision of the said Division Bench was challenged by preferring S.L.P.(Civil) being CC Nos. 7465-7668 of 2000 and S.L.Ps. were dismissed on the ground of delay. The Division Bench examined the evidence to arrive at a conclusion as to what should be the market price of agricultural lands and on appreciation of evidence, the Division Bench has confirmed the award made by the Reference Court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq.mtr. in that case. 18. In view of the documentary evidence and map, it is clear that the village Dahiap is adjoining to the villages; Lasundra, Laxmanpura, Sandheli and Sikandarporda. In these contiguous villages lands were acquired. The State has not pointed out by leading evidence that the lands of this village are inferior in fertility or not comparable with the lands of adjoining villages.
The Apex Court in the case of THAKARSIBHAI DEVJIBHAI & OTHERS vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GUJARAT & OTHERS reported in 2001 A.I.R. SCW 2417 pointed out that "So far the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. However, distance between the land under Exh.16 and the present land even if they are 5kms. apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distance from the Viramgam town." The Court further pointed out that "No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq.mtr. cannot be sustained."
19. In the instant case, the Reference Court has determined the market price at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. and, therefore, obviously, we would not like to interfere in view of the facts and circumstances narrated and discussed hereinabove. The appeals are, therefore, required to be dismissed, and stand dismissed with costs.
It goes without saying that all the statutory benefits which the claimants are entitled under the provisions of law must be given effect.
20. Mr. A.J.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the claimants, submitted that in view of pronouncement of judgment by the Apex Court in case of SUNDER vs. UNION OF INDIA (2001 SOL Case No.551), the claimants are also entitled to interest on solatium. The Apex Court in the said judgment pointed out as under:
"27. We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S.Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Kailashwati & Ors. (supra) `Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of S. 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well.'
28. In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence, the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly."
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to get interest on solatium.
21. The State is directed to pay 50% amount of compensation to the claimants within three months from today and to pay remaining 50% amount of compensation within three months thereafter on proper verification.