Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"These Reference cases are hereby disposed of on contest. Prevailing market price of the land under acquisition in question is determined and fixed at the flat rate of Rs.600/- per decimal. Claimants are also entitled to solatium @ 30%, escalation @ 12% for the period from the date of publication of notification U/s 4(1) of the Act to U/s 9 of the Act, interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% per year for rest of the period only on the enhanced amount of compensation. O.P. is 2026:JHHC:15302 directed to pay the balance of the compensation amount within three months from the date of this order. Let award be prepared accordingly."

51. The aforesaid point regarding additional compensation/ escalation is accordingly decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants.

52. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that even the appellants, while paying compensation to the claimants prior to reference, which the claimants received under protest, additionally paid solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and additional compensation as escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act has been paid on the rate of compensation assessed for the land at their end. The learned tribunal by the impugned judgement has awarded solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act only on the differential amount arising out of the enhanced rate of Compensation Rs.600/- per decimal. In their entire written statement filed before the learned tribunal, it was not their case that they have wrongly paid solatium @ 30% on the land value, interest @ 9% for first year and @ 15% for the subsequent years to the claimants and additional compensation as escalation @ 12% per annum for the period from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to under Section 9 of the Act and thus, it was not their case that even the interest already calculated and paid prior to reference suffered from any illegality with reference to the date of dispossession of the claimants. The learned tribunal has simply enhanced the rate of compensation for the land and did not interfere with any other component except that solatium, escalation and interest have to be paid also on differential amount for compensation of land. Once the payment of solatium, 2026:JHHC:15302 escalation and interest has been accepted and paid prior to reference, it is not open to the appellant to contend, without any foundational pleadings, that the claimants having been dispossessed in the year 1996 the interest etc has to be paid from 1996 only.

66. The learned tribunal also granted solatium, interest and escalation on the differential amount of compensation as the same was already paid with respect to the assessed amount by the concerned authority.

67. During the course of hearing, it has come to light and judgment of the tribunal passed in the case of Parej and Daru Kahsmar (exhibit-

2026:JHHC:15302 1/A) was subject matter of appeal before this Court in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 50 of 1995 and another analogous cases which was decided vide judgment dated 10.11.2004 and ultimately this Court reduced the compensation over land from Rs.727/- per decimal with deduction on account of development charges @20% to Rs.600/- per decimal with deduction on account of development charges @20%. The said judgment was subject matter of consideration in L.P.A no. 2 of 2005 and other analogous cases in appeals filed by the Union of India through CCL whereby this Court upheld the award on account of solatium to be paid @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till actual payment and the appeal was dismissed. The judgement of the LPA reveals that there was no challenge to the flat rate of compensation @ 600/- per decimal.