Nagpur Improvement Trust vs Vasantrao And Others on 26 September, 2002
It may be noticed that in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
vs. Jainul Islam and another (supra) this Court highlighted the
fact that though under the Land Acquisition Act as amended in
its application to the State of U.P. there was no provision for
grant of solatium, by the U.P. Act such solatium was provided
for. The intention of the legislature was apparent that it wanted
to confer the benefit of solatium by modifying Section 23(2),
which benefit was not available under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act as it was applicable in the State of U.P. at
the time of enactment of the U.P. Act. So far as the Punjab Act
and the Nagpur Act are concerned, the schedules do not modify
the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
which provides for payment of solatium. However, a proviso
was added to the effect that sub-section (2) shall not apply to
any land acquired under the State Acts in question. The added
proviso is identical in both the State Acts. This clearly implies
that where acquisition was made under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, as modified, the legislature did not
intend to deprive the claimants of solatium as provided under
the Land Acquisition Act. But solatium was not payable in
cases of acquisition under the State Acts. There are provisions
in both the State Acts which permit the State to acquire lands
for the purposes of the schemes without resorting to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act such as acquisition by
purchase, lease, exchange, or otherwise, or acquisitions
contemplated under deferred street scheme, development
scheme and expansion scheme. In respect of such acquisitions
solatium is not payable.