The Collector of Darrang and Mangaldai vs On The Death of Prafulla Chandra Goswami, Shri Amiya kumar Goswami and Others

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.—The State of Assam has filed this revision petition impugning the judgment and Order dated 25.6 84 passed by the learned District Judge Sonitpur at Tezpur in Misc. (Ref.) Case No. 83 of 1972 by which the learned Dist. Judge held that the claimant opposite party is entitled to get interest on the solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value of the acquired land of the claimant as compensation.

The land of the claimant was acquired by the State of Assam under the State Act, namely, Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, and that there being no provision of payment of solatium as compensation in addition to market value of the land, no solatium was awarded as compensation for acquisition of the land. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by judgment and Order passed in Civil Appeal No. 81-83 of 1972, however, held that the claimant - opposite party is entitled to get solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value of the acquired land as compensation. After the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the claimant-opp. party is entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value of the acquired land on account of compensation the learned District Judge by the impugned order held that solatium being integral part of compensation the claimant opposite party was entitled to get interest on the solatium from the date of taking over of possession of the acquired land till payment thereof and awarded interest accordingly.

The Petitioner has challenged the award of interest on solatium on the ground that the Hon''ble Supreme Court not having awarded interest, the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to award interest on the solatium. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that solatium being exgratia and it is granted over and above the compensation and as such, the learned District Judge had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in awarding interest on the solatium by the impugned judgment and order.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court by the judgment passed in Civil Appeals No. 81 to 83 of 1972 held that although the land of the claimant was acquired under the State Act, denial of solatium while awarding compensation would be discriminatory and inasmuch as had the land been acquired under the Central Act (Act 1 of 1894), u/s 23 of the Act the claimant would have been entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value. Besides, the State Act also provides that compensation is to be determined on the principle laid down in Act 1 of 1894. The Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the legal right of the claimant to get solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value while determining compensation for an acquired land and left other things, namely, determination of the amount of compensation adding solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value of the acquired land and other ancilliary matters to the reference Court. Compensation of acquisition of land is to be determined as per provisions of Section 23 of the said Act 1 of 1894 at the material time of acquisition of land in question, Section 23 provided that compensation of the acquired land would be market value of the land at the time of taking over possession of the acquired land plus solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value. As such solatium as contemplated u/s 23 of the Act 1 of 1894 is an integral part of compensation. u/s 34 of the Act 1 of 1894 a land owner whose land is acquired is entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation from the date of taking over possession of the acquired land to the date of payment of compensation. The rate of interest provided at the material time was 6% per annum. In the instant case a part of compensation, namely solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value of the acquired land remained unpaid and the claimant - opposite party is legally entitled to get interest on the unpaid part of the compensation. As such, the learned Dist. Judge by the impugned order has rightly awarded interest on the solatium which remained unpaid to the land-owner and committed no errors of jurisdiction in passing the impugned award. The learned District Judge did not specify the percentage of interest to which the claimant-opp. party is entitled on the unpaid part of compensation, namely, solatium. The claimant-opp. party would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of solatium from the date of taking over of possession of the acquired land till payment of the amount.

The petition is, therefore without merit and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/- to the opposite party.