Solatium awarded under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is not part of the award for purposes of payment of court fee under Section 48 of the Court Fees Act.

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) A bench of this Court consisting of one of us (Chief Justice) and kuppuswami, J. , referred to a Full bench the question whether court-fee is payable under Section 48 of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Court Fees Act) on 15% of the commendation which has to be awarded as solatium under sub-section (2) of Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Acquisition Act ).

( 2 ) THIS reference was occasioned by certain observations of our learned brother, Venkatesam, J. , delivering the judgment of the Bench in Dodlal Malliah v. State of Andh Pra, 1964-1 Andh WR 185 = (AIR 1964 Andh Pra 216), that court-fee should be payable not only on the excess market value, but also on the 15% thereon, following the Bench decision in Brahmanandam v. Secy. Of State, Ilr 53 Mad 48 = (AIR 1930 Mad 45 ), which held that where a person being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, wants to appeal, insisting in case of his success that not only the excess market value but also 15 per cent of the same should be decreed in his favour, he must pay court-fees not only on the excess market value, but also on 15 per cent thereon. Our learned brother stated; "it is also needless to point out the since the appellants were claiming interest on that amount, they were bound to pay court-fees on that amount as well. " In S. R. No. 33447 of 1966 = (AIR 1969 Andh Pra 55) (FB), Basi Reddi and Chandrasekhara Sastri, JJ. , while referring the question to a Full Bench stated that there was force in the contention that the observations in Dodla Malliahs case, 1964-1 Andh WR 185 = (AIR 1964 Andh Pra 216), were obiter and that even if those observations are not treated as such, that decision requires reconsideration. The Full Bench consisting of one of us (Chief Justice), Seshachelapati and Chinnappa Reddi, JJ. , held that in so far as interest awarded under Section 28 of the Acquisition Act was concerned, no court-fee was payable under Section 48 of the Court Fees Act. The Full Bench while observing that neither solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23, nor interest under Section 28 of the Acquisition forms part of the award, however, stated: "though in respect of solatium the Court is enjoined in every case to award a sum of 15% on the market value of the subject-matter in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, there is no duty on the Court to award interest on that amount; but statutory liability is imposed on the Collector to pay the amount awarded with interest thereon from the time of taking possession until such time as it shall have been paid or deposited. We are not here concerned with the question whether solatium is part of compensation within the meaning of Section 48 of the Court-Fees Act, because that question is neither argued, nor pressed upon us inasmuch as court-fee has already been paid thereon". Since that qeustion has now arisen for determination. Sri Suryanarayanan contends that the reasons which weighted with the Full Bench incoming to the conclusion that interest was no part of the compensation or the award or the decree no court-fee is payable under section 48 of the Court-Fees Act should be applied mutatis mutandis while determining the further question whether court-fee is payable under section 48 of the said Act on the excess of solatium awarded under Section 23 (2) of the Acquisition Act. The Full bench had held that compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Acquisition Act is the market value of the land together with damages or expenses or the loss of profits occasioned by the acquisition of the said land or poverty, that the compensation as computed under Sec. 23 (1) is the amount which has to be set which in the award passed under Section 26 (1 and it is that award which is deemed to be a decree under sub-section (2) of Sec. 26 and that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document