1. Interest on solatium under Section 28 read with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — determination of solatium as part of compensation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1207
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : S.B.Majmudar
Sunder
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 18433 of 1998
Date of Decision : 12/7/98
Advocates Appeared: Arora Meenakshi : Goswamy N.N. : Sethi J.K. : Tyagi J.N.S.
Important Points
The court referred the question of whether solatium is part of compensation for the purpose of paying interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions among three-judge benches.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28 and 34 - Interest on solatium - Whether solatium is a part of compensation for the purpose of awarding interest - Conflict between decisions of three-Judge Benches regarding whether solatium constitutes part of compensation - Later decisions failed to notice or consider the earlier view held by a three-Judge Bench - Matter requires determination by a Constitution/larger Bench. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The matter pertains to the legal question of whether interest is payable on solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the premise that solatium forms a part of the compensation awarded.
Findings of Court:
The court observed an apparent conflict between an earlier decision of a three-Judge Bench and subsequent decisions of other three-Judge Benches. It was noted that the later judgments did not consider or notice the earlier view that solatium is a part of compensation.
Issues: Whether interest can be paid on solatium under Section 28 read with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that solatium is a part of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a conflict between decisions of benches of equal strength and the later decisions have not considered the earlier view, the matter must be referred to a Constitution/larger Bench for final disposal.
Result: Referred to a Constitution/larger Bench.
Facts of the case:
The matter pertains to the legal question of whether interest is payable on solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the premise that solatium forms a part of the compensation awarded.
Findings of Court:
The court observed an apparent conflict between an earlier decision of a three-Judge Bench and subsequent decisions of other three-Judge Benches. It was noted that the later judgments did not consider or notice the earlier view that solatium is a part of compensation.
Issues: Whether interest can be paid on solatium under Section 28 read with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground that solatium is a part of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a conflict between decisions of benches of equal strength and the later decisions have not considered the earlier view, the matter must be referred to a Constitution/larger Bench for final disposal.
Result: Referred to a Constitution/larger Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
land acquisition
-
compensation
- solatium (Para 1)
-
compensation
-
land acquisition
Table of Contents
2. Whether solatium constitutes a part of compensation for the purpose of calculating interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 1 )
3. Conflict exists between three-judge bench decisions regarding solatium's status as compensation, with later judgments failing to consider the earlier contrary view. (Para 1 )
4. Apparent conflicts between decisions of benches of equal strength on a legal question require resolution by a larger or Constitution Bench. (Para 1 )
5. Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for placement before an appropriate Constitution or larger Bench. (Para 1 )
6. Does solatium constitute part of compensation for the purpose of paying interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
The court found a conflict between three-judge bench decisions on this issue, noting that later decisions did not consider an earlier contrary view, and therefore referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution. (Para 1 )
S.B.MAJMUDAR, J.
(1) LEAVE granted on the short question whether interest can be paid on solatium under Section 28 read with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that solatium is a part of compensation. This question squarely arises for consideration as there is an apparent conflict between a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Mehar on the one hand and the later three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. and Yadavrao P. Pathade v. State of Maharashtra on the other. The later three-Judge Bench judgments have taken the view that solatium is not a part of compensation. However, in none of the later three-Judge Bench judgments the earlier view of the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ram Mehar that solatium is a part of compensation, has been noticed or considered. Consequently, in our view, this matter requires to be decided by a Constitution/larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, direct that the papers may be placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India for placing the appeals arising out of these proceedings for final disposal before an appropriate Constitution/larger Bench of this Court.
