Statutory benefits, including solatium and interest, are inseparable components of the total compensation awarded in land acquisition. An appeal challenging these components relates to the decree for compensation, mandating the payment of ad valorem court fees under the applicable fiscal laws.

JUDGMENT

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. The present Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital [Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in First Appeal No. 33 of 2009, whereby the High Court directed the appellant to pay ad valorem court fee on the decreetal amount of Rs. 2,34,03,602.05 within two weeks.

2. The aforesaid first appeal was preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 24.11.2008 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun [Hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”] in L.A. Case No. 125 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Reference Court partly allowed the reference and held that the respondents are entitled to the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [In short, “Act”] i.e., the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation agreed from the date of notification till the date of the award or taking possession, whichever was earlier, solatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation, and statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. The Reference Court further directed that interest be calculated only up to the date of payment made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and after giving credit for such payment, the further interest be computed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the State Government issued a notification dated 07.03.1992 under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land situated at Banjarawala Mafi, Dehradun, for rehabilitation of the Tehri Dam oustees. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 29.01.1996 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 03.12.1997. Dissatisfied with the award, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act contending that although the acquired land measured 31.18 acres, compensation had been awarded only for 29.43 acres, besides claiming the statutory benefits under the Act.

3.1. By judgment dated 24.11.2008, the Reference Court rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of the remaining 1.75 acres of land but granted the statutory benefits, namely, the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the agreed compensation, solatium at the rate of 30%, and statutory interest at the prescribed rates. Aggrieved only by the grant of these statutory benefits, the appellant preferred First Appeal No. 33 of 2009 before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act. The appeal was valued at Rs. 2,34,03,602.05. However, the appellant paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 10/- on the footing that the appeal did not involve any challenge to the determination of compensation.

3.2. By order dated 20.05.2009, the High Court directed the Stamp Reporter to examine the sufficiency of the court fee paid. In his report dated 21.05.2009, the Stamp Reporter opined that since the appeal questioned only the grant of statutory benefits, namely, the additional amount, solatium and statutory interest, no ad valorem court fee was payable and the fixed court fee paid was sufficient. However, by order dated 25.07.2017, the High Court expresse