JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 153/2016 whereby, the claim of the appellants for payment of interest and solatium as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) was allowed while the claim for payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act was rejected.

3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ appeal is that the appellants are owners of land located at Sairang and Sihhmui. Their lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of new railway line vide Award No. 5/2012 @ Rs. 60/- and Rs. 40/- per sq. feet. Being aggrieved, they filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act seeking reference of the Award. The application was registered as L.A. Case No. 31/2013 and was taken up by the learned Civil Court (L.A. Judge) on being referred to by the Collector. Consequently, the L.A. Judge vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2014 disposed of Reference Application by enhancing the market value of the land at Rs. 200/- per sq. feet. Further, interest @ 9% per annum on the excess amount of the Award was also awarded as per Section 28 of the L.A. Act.

4. Being aggrieved, the N.F. Railway filed R.F.A. No. 24/2014 before this Court and the Collector filed Cross-Objection No. 1/2015. Both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2015. The N.F. Railway preferred further appeal before the Supreme Court vide SLP(C) CC No. 2583/2016 which again was dismissed. Consequently, the Collector made an assessment on the compensation amount to be paid to the petitioners and conveyed the same to the N.F. Railway vide letter dated 18.05.2016. However, in super-session of the said assessment, the Collector made another assessment and conveyed the same to the N.F. Railway vide letter dated 05.07.2016. As per the said Communication dated 05.07.2016, the Collector made an assessment on the land value with 9% interest on the excess compensation but without interest and solatium under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred W.P. (C) No. 153/2016. The writ petition was finally heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2017 in the manner as already indicated herein above. Accordingly, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. The appeal was taken up on 06.11.2019 and was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had for the first time raised the issue of payment of interest on solatium to which they are entitled and not before the earlier proceeding before the Writ Court. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred SLP(C) No. 6066/2020 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 was pleased to set aside the order dated 06.11.2019 after coming to a finding that the reasoning given by the Writ Appellate Court was erroneous and not consistent with record. In other words, the Apex Court held that the appellants have indeed raised their claim for interest on solatium in their writ petition before the learned Single Judge or the Writ Court. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. That is how the Writ Appeal is once again laid before us.

6. The short point to be considered in this appeal is therefore as to whether the appellants are entitled to receive further interest on the interest and solatium under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) in terms of Section 28 of the L.A. Act. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge in granting solatium and interest to the appellants under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act declined to grant interest as provided under Section 2