JUDGMENT

PATHAK, CJI.:— The question of law referred to us for decision in these cases is :

"Whether under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the claimants are entitled to solatium at 30 per cent of the market value irrespective of the dates on which the acquisition proceedings were initiated or the dates on which the award had been passed"?

2. It would suffice if we briefly refer to the facts in the Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 8194-8195 of 1985 : Union of India and another v. Raghbir Singh.

3. The land belonging to the respondents in village Dhaka was taken by compulsory acquisition initiated by a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 13 November, 1959. The award with regard to compensation was made by the Collector on 30th March, 1963. A reference under S. 18 of the Act was disposed of by the Additional District Judge on 10 June, 1968. He enhanced the compensation. The respondents preferred an appeal to the High Court claiming further compensation. During the pendency of the appeal the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982 was introduced in Parliament on 30 April, 1982, and became law as the Land Acquisition Amendment) Act, 1984 when it received the assent of the President on 24 September, 1084. The High Court disposed of the appeal by its Judgment and Order dated 6 December, 1984. While it raised the rate of compensation, it also raised the rate of interest payable on the compensation and taking into account the change in the law effected by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (referred to hereinafter as "the Amendment Act") it awarded solatium at30 per cent of the market value. The Judgment and Order of the High Court is the subject of these appeals.

4. When these cases came up before a Bench of two learned Judges (E. S. Venkataramiah and R. B. Misra, JJ.) on 23 September, 1985, they referred to two earlier decisions of this Court and expressed the view that the question set forth above required re-examination by a larger Bench of five Judges. It was further directed that the other questions involved in the petitions would be considered after the aforesaid question had been resolved by the larger Bench. The two decisions referred to in the Order of the learned Judges are K. Kamalajammanniavaru (dead) by LRs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1985) 1 SCC 582 decided by O. Chinnappa Reddy and Sabyasachi Mukharji JJ. on 14 February, 1985 and Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737 decided by P. N. Bhagwati C.J., A. N. Sen and D. P. Madon, JJ. on 14 August, 1985.

5. Solatium is awarded under sub-s. (2) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Amendment Act was enacted the sub-section provided for solatium at 15 percent of the market value. By the change introduced by the Amendment Act the amount has been raised to 30 per cent of the market value. Sub-s. (2) of S. 30 of the Amendment Act specifies the category of cases to which the amended rate of solatium is attracted. In K. Kamalajammanniavaru (supra), the two learned Judges held that sub-s. (2) of S. 30 referred to orders made by the High Court or the SC in appeals against an award made between 30 April, 1982 and 22 September, 1984, and that therefore solatium at 30 per cent alone pursuant to sub-s. (2) of S. 30 had to be awarded in such cases only. In Bhag Singh (supra), however, the three learned Judges held that sub-s. (2) of S. 30 referred to proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30 April, 1982 or filed subsequent to that date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or the High Court or the SC, even if they had finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. In taking that view they overruled K. Kamalajammanniavaru (AIR 1985 SC 576) (supra) and approved of the opinion expressed in another case, State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (1986) 1 SCC 365 decided by S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan