The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of interest on amounts payable under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is obligatory and not dependent on any formal claim by the landowners. The Court emphasized that procedural hurdles should not impede the substantive rights of citizens under the Act.

Judgment

B.P. SINGH, J. - Permission to file SLP granted.

2. Special leave granted.

3. In this batch of appeals the sole question which falls for consideration is whether the appellants herein are entitled to maintain an application for special leave before this Court impugning the judgment and order of the High b Court which affirmed the findings of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein. The appellants contend that the High Court ought to have, even in the appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, awarded interest on solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent on the other hand, C contends that the appeals had been preferred before the High Court by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in which the appellants herein were the respondents. The appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer having been dismissed by the High Court, the appellants cannot be said to be parties aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court. Before the High Court they had not even prayed for grant of interest on solatium and, d therefore, they cannot be permitted to move this Court by way of special leave claiming such relief. It is not disputed by them that if really such a claim was made either before the Collector or before the Reference Court dealing with the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, having regard to the law as now settled by a decision of this Court, interest on solatium was bound to be granted to the appellants.

4. The few facts which are relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

five notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were published for acquisition of lands situated in Village Vekara, District Mehsana, Gujarat. The appellants are the f. landowners of the lands sought to be acquired by the aforesaid notifications. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation @ Rs 24,000 per ha (Rs 2.40 per sq m) for irrigated lands and Rs 16,000 per ha (Rs 1.60 per sq m) for non - irrigated lands. The appellants claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation @ Rs 30 per sq m By its judgment and order of 20 - 4 - 2000 the Reference Court under Section 18 of 9 the Land Acquisition Act determined the market value of the lands of the appellants @ Rs 22 per sq m However, it did not award interest on the amounts payable under Section 23(1 - A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, namely, on the amount payable by way of additional amount and solatium. The Reference Court following the judgment of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd.1 held that no interest was payable in respect of amounts envisaged by Sections 23(1 - A) and 23(2) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants, the Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred First Appeals Nos. 1320 to 1395 of 2001 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which came to be disposed of by the judgment and order of the High Court dated 19 - 9 - 2001. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the determination of compensation by the Reference Court and accordingly dismissed the appeals.

6. The instant special leave petitions have been filed by the claimants contending that the High Court ought to have awarded interest on the amounts payable under Sections 23(1 - A) and 23(2) of the Act. It is their case that the interest payable on these amounts must be incorporated in the decree of the Court even if no prayer is made for it because the Act obliges the Collector to pay such interest on the amount determined by the Collector or the Court. For awarding such interest no exercise of judicial discretion is called for. Only an arithmetical exercise has to be unde