Judgment :

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. In all the cases in this large group, arising from land acquisition proceedings, the State of Karnataka is directed to pay interest on the amounts of solatium. The liability to pay interest on solatium stands settled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. But Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Karnataka, the appellant in all the appeals, submitted that the question of applicability of the decision in Sunder was explained and clarified in another Constitution Bench decision of this Court (delivered after the filing of these appeals) in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457. Relying upon paragraph 54 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Hegde submitted that in cases where full payments were made in terms of the decree and the execution proceedings were consequently closed, the proceedings could not be re-opened and directions given for payment of interest on the basis of the decision in Sunder; further, any direction for payment of interest on solatium could only be for the period subsequent to the date of decision in Sunder (September 19, 2001). In other words, in cases where the full amounts of solatium were paid before September 19, 2001, there would be no question of payment of any interest. He, therefore, submitted that all the cases should be remitted to the respective courts below to re-examine the claim of the landowners/claimants in light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh.

2. We see no reason to adopt the course suggested by Mr. Hegde. The facts of the cases before us are quite simple and it can be easily ascertained which of these cases, if any, are hit by the decision in Gurpreet Singh. Besides, all the cases are fairly old. An order of remand would simply start a fresh round of appeals and further appeals, and would keep the land-holders/claimants embroiled in litigation for an extended period. If we can, we would not like the landowners/claimants to suffer any longer. If any landowner/claimant has a lawful claim, he must get it; otherwise, the matter must end here and now.

3. On the basis of the respective facts, the appeals in this group can be divided into four sub-groups. And now we propose to deal with each sub-group separately.

4. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that some cases belonging to different sub-groups enumerated herein below were earlier disposed of in piecemeal manner by order passed on March 25, 2010. Since all the cases in the different sub-groups are now being dealt within a consolidated manner, we recall the earlier order passed on March 25, 2010.

A

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5054, 5055, 5056, 5057, 5058, 5059, 5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5065, 5066, 5067, 5068 & 5069 OF 2010(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18518/2005, 18522/2005,18523/2005, 18521/2005, 18519/2005, 18525/2005, 18526/2005, 18524/2005,18528/2005, 20027/2005, 20029/2005, 19786/2005, 19787/2005, 19788/2005,23003/2005, 22773/2005)

5. There are sixteen cases in this sub-group with identical facts.

6. Delay condoned.

7. Leave granted.

8. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appears on behalf of the appellant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel represents the respondents-landowners in all the appeals in this sub-group.

9. The facts of the case, relevant for the present are very simple and brief and may be stated thus. The possession of the land coming under acquisition was taken over by the State on August 14, 1989 even before the issuance of the preliminary notification that came on January 3, 1992. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on October 13, 1993 fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/-per acre. On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the civil court, by judgment and order dated November 27, 1998 enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/-per acre. It also awarded solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12% from the date of dispossessi