The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to additional compensation, interest, and solatium under the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the validity of the refusal to refer the matter to the civil court.

1. Lands belonging to the petitioner and her sister were acquired under the provisions of Kerala Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose. An amount of Rs.20,28,911.60 was fixed as compensation as per Award 2/84 dated 11-6-1984. The entire amount was deposited before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trivandrum under Ss.32 and 33(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The land and the buildings thereon were taken possession of by the Government on 22-6-1984. Petitioner claimed the benefits under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984. As per the Central Act, petitioner was entitled to interest under S.23(1-A) and thirty per centum of market value as solatium under clause (2) of S.23. In the award no interest was paid as contemplated by S.23(1-A). The solatium that was awarded was only at the rate of 15%. When interest and solatium were calculated as provided by clauses (1-A) and (2) of S.23, the total amount of compensation payable to the petitioner came to Rs.27,87,727.34. This shows that the petitioner and her minor sister were entitled to get a sum of Rs.7,58,815.74 more than that covered by the award as compensation. That amount was paid in two equal instalments. One half of it was paid to the petitioner on 8-1-1986. The remaining half due to the minor sister of the petitioner was deposited in court on 9-4-1986. Petitioner now claims interest on those amounts as provided by S.34 of the Central Act. S.34 provides for payment of interest on the amount of compensation for the period from the date of taking possession of the property till the date of payment. If the payment is effected within one year, the interest payable is nine per centum. As per the proviso to the said section, if the compensation amount or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year, interest has to be calculated at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum for the period after the expiry of the period of one year.

2. As stated earlier, award was passed on 11-6-1984 and possession was taken on 22-6-1984. The compensation calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in Clauses (1-A) and (2) of S.23 of Act 1 of 1894 ought to have been paid or deposited on the date of award or the date of taking possession of the property, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, as per the above provision a sum of Rs.7,58,815.75 ought to have been paid or deposited on 11-6-1984. This having not been done, the amount of Rs.7,58,815.75 must carry interest in terms of S.34 of Act 1 of 1984. This means, for the period from 11.6.1984 to 10-6-1985 the said amount should carry interest at the rate of 9-per centum per annum. From 11-6-1985 to 8-1-1986 one half of Rs.7,58,815.75 which is due to the petitioner must carry interest at the rate of 15 per centum per annum. The other half due to the petitioner's sister must carry interest at the rate of 15 per centum from 11-6-1985 to 9-4-1986, the date on which that amount was deposited in court. The interest calculated as above, must be paid to the petitioner and her minor sister as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3. The petitioner had sent Exts.P5 and P6 letters to the second respondent, who was exercising the powers of Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. Ext.P5 is dated 30-7-1984. It is stated to have been sent by registered post acknowledgement due on 3-8-1984. Ext.P6 is another letter sent by the petitioner on her own behalf and on behalf of her sister to the second respondent from Madras on 6-8-1984. Both letters reached the second respondent on 8-8-1984. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, these letters are requests made to the second respondent to refer the case to the civil court for deciding the correct amount of compensation. In pursuance to these applications requesting for reference, the second respondent should have referred the matter to civil court und