Shakuntla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that she should be given statutory solatium as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Proceedings u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were initiated for acquisition of the land of the petitioner. During the course of acquisition, negotiations were held between the parties and finally on 12.6.2008, the negotiations culminated in a settlement, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

Thereafter the land owners agreed upon Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lac only) per bigha for all types of cultivated land and Rs. 4,00,000/-(Four Lac only) per bigha for all types of non cultivated land. Instead of this, the land owners asked to give the payment of fruit plant, non fruit plant & house separately.

The petitioner is now claiming that she is entitled to 30% solatium over and above the negotiated amount of settlement. In support of her claim, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Sharma submits that this award was only qua the land and no settlement was arrived at qua the solatium. He also submits that the supplementary awards were passed on 18.12.2009 wherein compensation was awarded for trees and structures standing on these lands. He, therefore, submits that since supplementary awards were passed in respect of structure as well as the trees, it can be presumed that the supplementary award had to be passed in respect of solatium also. We cannot accept this submission. When a party enters into negotiations, then that is the rate it agrees to accept. Solatium or compulsory acquisition charges, by their very name, indicate that this is extra compensation which is paid when the land is compulsorily acquired. No doubt, notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued, but thereafter, if the parties agreed to a rate and in the agreement there is no mention that solatium is to be paid over and above the agreed rate, the parties are bound by the said agreement.

As far as the payment of compensation for structures and trees is concerned, it is obvious that the settlement was only with regard to the value of the land and not with regard to the structure and trees and, therefore, supplementary award in this regard was passed.

We, therefore, feel that the petitioner cannot back out of the negotiated settlement. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.