THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
NELSON SAILO, J
Sh. Lujon Kumar And 458 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram R/b The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of Mizoram - Respondent
WP(C) 75 / 2019, 76 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 34 - Petitioners claim entitlement to solatium and interest not provided in compensation for land acquisition for Indo-Bangla Border Road-cum-Fencing - Court affirms statutory right to solatium and interest despite prior acceptance of compensation - Writ petition maintainable for such claims. (Paras 2 , 4 , 5 , 13 , 15 )
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Court - Writ Court can compel public authority to discharge statutory duties despite existence of alternative remedies under LA Act. (Paras 5 , 13 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioners in two writ petitions challenge non-payment of solatium and interest under the LA Act after receiving compensation for land acquisition. They argue that their statutory rights have been violated. (Paras 2 , 3 )
Findings of Court:
The District Collector is directed to assess and compute solatium and interest payable to the petitioners under the LA Act, ensuring compliance within two months. (Paras 15 , 16 )
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest despite prior acceptance of compensation and the maintainability of the writ petition for such claims. (Paras 4 , 12 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-payment of solatium and interest constitutes a failure of statutory duty by the Collector, and a writ petition is maintainable to enforce such rights. (Paras 5 , 13 )
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to assess and pay solatium and interest.
ORDER :
(NELSON SAILO, J.)
[1.] Heard Mr. C Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. StephenLalbuatsaiha for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General for the Staterespondents. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Union ofIndia and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 EngineeringProjects (India) Limited (EPIL). Since the issue involved in both the writpetitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common Jugment &Order.
[2.] The petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved for not having been given solatium and interest in terms of Section 23(1A) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) apart from the compensation amount. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 75/2019 were given compensation as per Draft Award No. 3/2009 for acquisition of their land for the purpose of Indo-Bangla Border Road-cum- Fencing. As for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 76/2019, they were given compensation as per Draft Award No. 3/2007 for acquisition of their land for the same purpose. Both set of writ petitioners have however not been given any amount towards solatium and interest in terms of the relevant provisions of the L.A Act.
[3.] The amount that has been assessed by the District Collector concerned was duly approved by the State Government in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department and thereafter, the same was sanctioned and paid to the respective land owners. Therefore, there are no dispute from any quarter about the compensation and the only grievance raised by the instant writ petitioners is that they are entitled to receive solatium and interests which they have been deprived of.
[4.] Mr. C Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their entitlement to solatium and interests in view of the fact that it is already a settled law that even if a reference application is not filed by the land owners concerned, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for claiming such benefit would be maintainable. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel refers to the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2019 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Reference Case No. 1/2017. The learned Senior Counsel submits that reference was made by a Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 117/2015 on the question as to whether a writ petition claiming interest and solatium under the LA Act, which power vests with the Reference Court under Section 23(1A) & 23(2) would be maintainable in the absence of any reference being made to the Court in terms of Section 18 of the same Act and that too, when the petitioners have already accepted the awarded compensation.
[5.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that the reference case was answered in the affirmative by the Division Bench, by holding that payment of interest and solatium is a statutory right and entitlement of a person interested and non-payment of such interest and solatium would be failure on the part of the Collector to discharge the statutory duty vested on him. If such failure has occasioned on the part of the public authority, a writ Court would certainly be well within its jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel the public authority to discharge the statutory duty. The fact of existence of alternative remedy under Section 13(A) & 18 of the LA Act would not debar a writ Court from exercising such jurisdiction in an appropriate case. Such being the case, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the District Collector concerned may be directed to make the assessment towards solatium and interest payable to the petitioners and the amount assessed be directed to be deposited by the authority in whose favour the land had been acquired within a time frame for onward payment to the petitioners as per their share.
[6.] The learned Seni
City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.
Payment of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act is a statutory right, and a writ petition can be maintained to enforce this right even if compensation has been accepted.
There is no provision for payment of solatium and interest in Regulation of 1947, whereas same is available in RFCT & LARR Act.
The acquisition process does not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has been tendered to the landowners and possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.
Point of Law : It is well settled that if a person has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Authority, he cannot challenge proceedings, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of said authority in furt....
Point of Law : Section 28 empowers the courts, if it was enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector, to award interest on the sum in excess of what the Collector had awarded as compensation.
The court affirmed the obligation to pay compensation for land acquisition, emphasizing the learned Single Judge's jurisdiction to direct payment when no challenge to the award existed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory entitlement to interest on solatium as part of just and fair compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.