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 co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document