Union of India & another vs Sita Ram and another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Vide award dated 26th July, 2003, the Reference Court/District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, had enhanced the compensation in favour of respondents for acquisition of their land and had also held that land owners shall be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) qua the enhanced amount of compensation, as per their shares recorded in the Record of Rights. Other statutory benefits were also extended to the land owners.

The aforesaid award was assailed by Union of India by filing RFA Nos. 287, 300 and 309 of 2005 which were dismissed by learned Single Judge of this High Court on 1st September, 2011.

In sequel to dismissal of RFAs, preferred by the Union of India, respondent No.1/land owner preferred Execution Petition No.0100004/2011 (4-R/10 of 2011) titled Sita Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector with the claim of interest on solatium. The Union of India had raised objection that land owner was not entitled for interest on solatium.

4 The Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 10.08.2017, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled as Changa Singh and another vs. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2879, rejected the objection of Union of India and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, land owner was entitled to the interest on solatium.

5 The aforesaid order dated 10.08.2017 passed by Executing Court has been assailed by Union of India in the present Revision Petition.

6 Admittedly, the issue with respect to dis-entitlement of interest on solatium was never specifically raised by the Union of India either before the Reference Court or before the High Court and the entitlement of interest on solatium has not been rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the Appellate Court rather it is a case where interest on compensation has been awarded.

In such situation, the Supreme Court in Changa Singh’s case has held that it would be open for the Executing Court to apply the ratio of Sunder vs. Union of India, reported in (2001)7 SCC 211 and to include the solatium in the compensation and, in such event, interest on the entire amount of compensation can be directed to be deposited in execution.

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the Executing Reference Court. Accordingly, present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.