Kuldip Raj and Others vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others

J.N. Bhat, J.—In these 19 appeals two points arise for consideration. The proprietors or, in legal language, the persons interested have

objected to the amount of compensation. Their grievance is that more compensation should have been allowed to them than has been actually

given by the learned District Judge Jammu. The appeal of the Collector is with respect to the grant of interest. His objection is twofold, one that

interest is discretionary and should not have been allowed and secondly that if any interest is allowed, it should be allowed only on the value of the

land assessed and not on the 15% Jabirana i.e., solatium also.

After hearing the parties, the parties took time to arrive at an amicable settlement about the price of the land to be paid to the owners. Ultimately

they came to an agreement that Rs. 375/- per kanal should be paid as compensation for the land in village Gaginan Tehsil R.S. Pora (i.e. in appeals

Nos. 27, 28, 53, 55 and 56 of 1966) and Rs. 2,000/- per kanal for the land situate in Ranbir Singh Pora (i.e. in appeal No. 54 of 1966). The

amount of money payable to various owners in the different appeals at this rate as the price of the land comes to:

In appeal No. 27 of 1966 = Rs. 25,818.75

In appeal No. 28 of 1966 = Rs. 12,918.75

In appeal No. 53 of 1966 = Rs. 10.462.50

In appeal No. 56 of 1966 = Rs. 11,306.25

In appeal No. 55 of 1966 = Rs. 20,587.50

In appeal No. 54 of 1966 = Rs. 15,100.00

So that concludes one part of the appeals i.e. the appeals of the owners.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the Collector is composed of two parts; one that payment of interest is discretionary; but this argument

of his is refuted and the matter concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court, Collector v. Habib Ullah AIR 1967 J and K 44 (FB). In that case

after considering various authorities the Court came to the conclusion that payment of interest under Sections 28 and 35 of the Act was obligatory

and it could not be denied to a person whose land had been acquired.

For the proposition that interest should not be paid on 15% jabirana (solatium), the argument of the learned Counsel for the Collector is that

Jabirana is not part of compensation and interest is payable only on compensation. He has referred us to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

This section consists of two parts: Part (1) states:

In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration -

....

six things, which are mentioned therein.

According to him this is the compensation that has to be paid and interest is to be computed only on this amount. But we are afraid that this

argument of the learned Counsel for the Collector is not correct. As already stated this section consists of two parts. The opening words of the first

part have already been quoted but the second part reads like this:

(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market

value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

The head-note of the section is ""Matters to be considered in determining compensation"", which obviously means that not only the first part but both

parts of this section have to be read together in determining the compensation. The compensation that the owner or other person who is deprived

of his property is to get is the first market value then other things contained in part (1) of the section plus 15% as solatuim (Jabirana) which is given

to him to compensate him for the acquisition of his property against his wishes. The learned Counsel for the Collector has referred us to State of

Madras Vs. Balaji Chettiar and Others, but we are afraid he has not read the authority properly because that authority clearly says that:

The Solatium u/s 23(2) Land Acquisition Act cannot be considered to be an integral part of Section 23(1) of that Act. The 15 per cent solatium is

not integrated with the market value but is a gift or addition provided under the statute. The claim to it will disappear when the statute providing for

it is withdrawn.

So this authority clearly makes the distinction between parts (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Act. Obviously the solatium is not a part of the market

value of the land but is an additional amount granted to the owners as I said earlier, to compensate them for the loss caused to them.

The dictionary meaning of the word ""compensation"" is ""something that constitutes an equivalent or recompense; something that makes good a

lack; something that makes up for a loss; something that relieves, equalizes or neutralizes"". Similarly the word has been defined in Whartion's Law

Lexicon as 'making things equivalent; satisfying or making amends; also that equivalent in money which is paid to the owners or occupiers of land

taken or injuriously affected for public purposes and under Act of Parliament i.e. the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 and 9 Vict.

Clause 18)'. Therefore, on a plain construction and simple reading of Section 23 of the Act, it is clear that 15 per cent of Jabirana (solatium) is

included, in the word 'compensation', and interest is to be paid on this amount under Sections 28 and 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this view

of ours, we are further fortified by a recent authority of the Gujarat High Court reported as Patel Maganbhi Chaturbhai and Another Vs. The

Collector, Mehsana District, .

(In paragraphs 6 to 8, the judgment works out the amounts of compensation payable to the various owners with interest. The judgment then

proceeds:)

In all the cases, the Appellants will be entitled to a further interest at the rate of 4 % per annum from today on the amount of compensation

standing unpaid till the whole amount is liquidated.

The appeals filed by the Collector stand dismissed. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.

S.M. Fazl Ali, C.J.

I agree.