P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) WE are left to the unenviable task of explaining apparently conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court in this case coming up before the Full Bench on a reference by the Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE question posed by the Division Bench in the reference order is"whether the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium under Section 28 of the Land Acquisation Act?. Solatium obviously is referable to the amount payable under sub-section (2), of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the light of the decree passed in this case, we may have to recast and formulate the question as follows: "whether the claimant is entitled to interest under Section 28 on solatium payable under sub-section (2) of Section 23 and the additional amount payable under subsection (1-A) of Section 23 ?

( 3 ) AT the outset, we must mention that the appellant is the Company for whose banefit the land acquisition proceedings were initiated. It was not a party before the reference Court. With the leave of this Court, the Company has preferred the appeal. While granting leave, the Court permitted the appellant only to the extent of canvassing the correctness of the decree granting additional benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, (68 of 1984 ). It must be clarified that the only dispute centres round the award of interest on the additional amounts payable under Section 23 (1 -A) and 23 (2) and the entitlement or otherwise to the other benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 is not in issue in the appeal. One more aspect to be clarified is that the trial Court granted interest under Section 28 "on the amount awarded by the Court". Whether the learned trial Judgment to give interest on the amount payable under sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 23 as well is not very clear from the judgment and decree; but in order to obviate any doubt and in view of the reference order, we will proceed on the basis that the interest was in fact awarded in respect of the amounts payable under sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 23 of the Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 28 of the Act lays down that if the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct payment of interest on such excess at the rate of 9% from the date on which possession of the land was taken till the date of payment of the differential amount in the Court. However, where such excess or any part (hereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken, interest at the enhanced rate of 15% is payable from the date of expiry of the period of one year till the date the amount has been paid into Court. The crucial question is whether the word compensation occuring in Section 28 embraces within its scope and ambit, the amounts which the claimant is entitled to under sub-sections (1-A) and (2) of Section 23 of the Act. The question is, practically, no longer res Integra. It is concluded by two recent decisions of Supreme Court in favour of the appellant. However, deference to the observations made by the learned Judges that the apparent conflict between two decisions has to be resolved by the Full Bench, we shall deal with the relevant issue in detail with reference to the relevant decisions.

( 5 ) WE would first refer to the decision which according to the learned Judges has laid down the proposition that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium. In Union of India v. Ram Mehar, AIR 1973 SC 305, their lordships were concerned with the question whether interest under Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act of 1967 was payable to the claimants. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the said Act made a provision for payment of interest on the market value of the land at the prescribed percentage and with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document