Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.N.RAO
COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
PENTA REDDY - Respondent
Decided On : 07-22-86
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - SOLATIUM - NOT AN INVARIABLE COMPONENT OF COMPENSATION - CAN BE AWARDED ONLY WHEN PROVIDED BY STATUTE - NO SOLATIUM PAYABLE UNDER THE REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITIONING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952 - PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE DETERMINING COMPENSATION - SOLATIUM CANNOT BE AWARDED IN APPEAL WHEN NOT CLAIMED BY THE CLAIMANT EITHER BY WAY OF APPEAL OR CROSS-OBJECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The State appealed against the award of compensation for lands requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The claimants sought solatium and enhancement of interest.
Finding of the Court:
1. Solatium is not an invariable component of compensation and can only be awarded when provided by statute. 2. Under the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952, solatium is not payable. 3. The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution should be kept in mind while determining compensation. 4. Solatium cannot be awarded in appeal when not claimed by the claimant either by way of appeal or cross-objections.
Issues: 1. Whether solatium is an invariable component of compensation? 2. Whether solatium is payable under the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952? 3. Whether the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution should be considered while determining compensation? 4. Whether solatium can be awarded in appeal when not claimed by the claimant either by way of appeal or cross-objections?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Solatium is not an invariable component of compensation and can only be awarded when provided by statute. This is because solatium is a form of damages granted for the injury and distress caused to the feelings of the owner due to compulsory acquisition of property. It is not a necessary element of compensation, as compensation is intended to cover the actual value of the property and any direct damages resulting from the acquisition. 2. Under the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952, solatium is not payable. This is because the Act does not contain any provision for the payment of solatium. 3. The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution should be kept in mind while determining compensation. This is because the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens, and this includes the right to receive just and fair compensation for property that is compulsorily acquired. 4. Solatium cannot be awarded in appeal when not claimed by the claimant either by way of appeal or cross-objections. This is because the claimant has acquiesced in the decision of the lower court by not challenging it through an appeal or cross-objections. Therefore, the appellate court cannot interfere with the lower court's decision and award solatium.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
( 1 ) THESE four appeals are preferred by the State under Section 11 of the Reguisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immoveable Property Act, 1952. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 415/1980 arises from Arbitration Case No. 4/75 pertaining to Ac. 10. 21 guntas in survey No. 165 at Alwal village. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 416/1980 arises from A. C. 3/75 pertaining to Ac. 8. 09 guntas in survey No. 164. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 417/80 arises from a. C. 1/75 pertaining to Ac. 3. 09 guntas in survey No. 162 and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 418/80 arises from Ac. 2/75 pertaining to Ac. 7. 17 guntas in survey No. 163. All these four survey numbers are adjacent to each other. Indeed they form a contiguous block.
( 2 ) THESE lands concerned were requisitioned under the Act in 1966. Acquisition proceedings were commenced in 1971. The competent authority offered to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 9. 50 ps. per square yard, to which however, the claimants were not agreeable. In AC Nos. 1, 2 and 4/75 they claimed at the rate of Rs. 50/- per suqare yard, while the claimants in ac 3/75 claimed at the rate of Rs. 30/ -. As between the owners and the protected tenants of these lands, an agreement to share the compensation in a particular proportion has been arrived at, with which of course we are not concerned here.
( 3 ) THE lands concerned herein are situated in Cantonment area. When the matter was referred to the arbitrator, the claimants filed two sale deeds, viz. , Exs. A-1 and A-2, relating to plots situated nearby, besides Exs. A-3 and A-5. Ex. A-3 and A-5. Ex. A3 is the judgment of the civil court in OP 158/74 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, pertaining to adjacent lands, whereunder compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard. It appears that the said acquisition was made by the State Government under the Land Acquisition act. Ex. A-5 is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 408 to 412/75 dated 8th April1976 relating to lands situated about two to three furlongs away from these lands, whereunder compensation warded at the rate of Rs. 14/- per square yard was confirmed by this Court. Certain plans were also filed by both the parties to indicate the location and importance of the lands concerned herein.
( 4 ) THE Arbitrator (a retired District Judge) took into consideration ex. A-1 as also Ex. A2 and having regard to the judgment in Ex. A-3, he determined the compensation payable for these lands at Rs. 30/- per square yard. The claim for solatium was negatived. He awarded interest at the rate of 4% per annum. No appeal has been preferred by the claimants. Only the State has appealed, as stated above. Not even cross-objections have been filed by the claimants.
( 5 ) THE learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellant-State urged the following contentions : (1) That the determination of compensation at Rs. 30/- is excessive. No reasons are given by the learned Arbitrator for not applying and adopting the principle enunciated by the Division Bench of this court in the judgment ex. A-5. In particular, no reasons are given for not making a deduction of 25% on account of restrictions on construction in force within the cantonment area. Ex. A-1 as also Ex. A-2 pertain to small developed plots and cannot be treated as comparable to a large block of land concerned herein ; and (2 That in the absence of any appeal or cross-objections by the claimant, this Court cannot and shall not grant solatium as requested by the counsel for the respondents in these appeals. There are no grounds also for enhancing the rate or interest awarded.
( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sarvasri S. Venkata Reddy, K. Raghava Rao and A. Ananda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Arbitrator. They further submitted that inasmuch as solatium is implict within the expression and concept of compensation it must
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
