SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1245

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
H.V. Low & Company Private Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 435-436 of 2013
Decided On : 01-03-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jayant Bhushan, C. Mukund, Pankaj Jain, Ashok Jain, Ms. Aankhi Ghosh, Abhilash Attri, Bijoy Kumar Jain
For the Respondents: Avijit Bhattacharjee, Mrinl Kanti Mandal, Parijat Sinha

The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to re-examine the applicability of solatium in acquisitions under the Defence of India Act, 1939 and its comparison with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnote:

Defence of India Act - Acquisition - 1939 Act, 1939 Rules - Section 19, Section 23(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court discussed the provisions of the Defence of India Act, 1939 and the Rules thereunder, particularly Section 19 and Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court considered the applicability of solatium in acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and its comparison with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court also examined the distinction between properties requisitioned under the Defence of India Act and other properties, and the payment of compensation during the period of requisition.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the acquisition of land under the Defence of India Act, 1939 and the Rules thereunder. The appellant received an award for compensation, which was further contested, specifically claiming solatium, which was denied based on the decision in Union of India v. Chajju Ram. The appellant argued that the Defence of India Act, particularly Section 19, made reference to compensation to be paid when property was acquired under the Act read with the Rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of the Defence of India Act, particularly Section 19, were to be considered in relation to the payment of compensation and the applicability of solatium. The court also noted the distinction between acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the payment of compensation during the period of requisition.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the provisions of the Defence of India Act, particularly Section 19, and the comparison with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court also considered the denial of solatium based on the decision in Union of India v. Chajju Ram and the applicability of the same in the present case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the judgment in Union of India v. Chajju Ram needed further consideration and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench for further hearing. The court also emphasized the need to re-examine the applicability of solatium in acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and its comparison with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Final Decision: The court referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench for further hearing in the matter, indicating the need for re-examining the applicability of solatium in acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and its comparison with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT :

Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.

The present appeals arise from an acquisition made under the Defence of India Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') read with the Rules thereunder. On 29th April, 1943, 12.84 acres of land along with several buildings, structures and other constructions were requisitioned under Rule 75A(1) of Defence of India Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') On 2nd June, 1945, the said property under requisition was acquired by the Government of India, at which point of time, a cotton mill under construction comprising of various plots, stood acquired. Thereafter, compensation proceedings under the said Act and Rules were commenced, and an Award dated 6th May, 1947 was made offering an amount of Rs.2,40,113.75p. to the appellant, who accepted the same under protest. On 8th December, 1949, a reference to arbitration was made under the provisions of the said Act. An Award was ultimately passed by the learned Arbitrator awarding a sum of Rs.14,29,366/- in the following terms :

"Point No. 1

Claimant will get rent compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month from June 1943 to July 1946 for 38 months.

Point No. 2

Property acquired as 12.84 acres and this reference is in respect of this area.

Point No. 3

Compensation for land acquired is fixed at the rate of Rs.300/- per Cottah and Rs.20,000/- for the tank excavated.

Point No. 4 & 5

Compensation for the main structure is fixed at Rs.673634.50p. For the incomplete structure at Rs.76261.50P. for other structures viz. B.T. Roofed bunglow pump house reservoir etc. at Rs.40,000/- the boundary wall at Rs.43,000/- for bricks and trees at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,950/- respectively for the damage to films at Rs.10,000/- and removal cost of Rs.1,000/- and for miscellaneous items at Rs.30,000/-.

Point No. 6

For the big chimney compensation is allowed at Rs.75,000/- as injurious affection.

Point No. 7 & 8

Claim for injurious affection on other items allowed in part for Rs.50,000/- as per details in the body of the judgment and at 25% for 15.12 acres which comes to Rs.45,350/-.

Point No. 9

Claim for compulsory damage at 15% is disallowed.

Interest allowed at 6% from the date of occupation till payment. The payment already received shall be deduced from the claim allowed.

The total compensation with interest as per finding in the body of the judgment is payable to Jai Kumar Karnani as managing member and Karta of Joint hindu family business, the amount is to be paid by the Rs.673684.50P. For the incomplete structure at Rs.76261.50 p. for other structures viz. B.T. Roofed bunglaw Pump house reservoir etc. at Rs.40,000/- the boundary wall at Rs.43,000/- for bricks and trees at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,950/- respectively for the damage to films at Rs.10,000/- and removal cost of Rs.1,000/- and for miscellaneous items at Rs.30,000/-."

2. From this Award, a first Appeal was filed which culminated in the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2011. Ultimately, it was held that the claimant was entitled to get a further sum of Rs.28,48,544/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforesaid sum as decreed from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands from the appellant. The appellant specifically claimed solatium, which was turned down by the impugned judgment relying on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram (dead) by Lrs. and Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 568.

3. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has argued before us that the Defence of India Act, and Section 19 in particular, made reference to compensation that was to be paid when property was acquired under the Act read with the Rules. He has drawn our attention to Section 19, and particularly to Section 19(1)(e)(i), which applies Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alone to acquisitions under the Defence of India Act and Rules, which necessarily entailed no payment of solatium, as the said payment is referred to by sub-Section (2)































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top