Honble TATIA, J.–With the consent of the parties, ``these appeals have been heard finally.

(2). There is a short dispute between the parties whether the agriculturists, whose land was acquired, are entitled for solatium as per sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894) and additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on market value of the land from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) till the date of award or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier under sub- section (1)(A) of Section 23 of the Act of 1894.

(3). The facts relating to the matter are that Notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (which was applicable to the Rajasthan) were published on 8.6.1983 and 3.8.1983. Notices were also issued under Section 9 of the above Act directing the agriculturists-non-petitioners to submit their claim. The land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of Hindustan Zinc Limited.

(4). During pendency of the above mentioned proceedings, it appears that negotiations were taken place and with the help and intervention of the Advocates of the agriculturists non- petitioners and public representatives, a meeting was called which was presided over by Shri Narpat Singh Chauhan who was Revenue Appellate Authority at that time. Thereafter, an agreement was drawn on 26.11.1988, though it was described as draft compromise but there is no dispute that this draft compromise was accepted as final compromise. In pursuance of the above compromise which is placed on record as Ex.A.1, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award but it appears that the Land Acquisition Officer did not award solatium payable under sub- section (2) of Section 23 and also did not award additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on market value of the land as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, an application was submitted by the claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that the claimants are accepting the award amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to either pay the amount of the solatium and interest and other benefits or sent it to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(5). It appears that instead of making reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer by order dated 4.8.1989 itself decided and held that the amount which has been awarded in the award is inclusive of solatium at the rate of 30% and additional amount of 12% and, therefore, claimants are not entitled for the further amount of 30% on account of solatium and 12% on account of additional amount and rejected the application of the agriculturists claimants by order dated 4.8.1989.

(6). The agriculturists claimants, thereafter submitted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.180/90 Arjun & Ors. vs. State (1) challenging the order dated 4.8.1989 and this Court allowed the writ petition No. 180/90 and all other 35 connected writ petitions and set aside the order dated 4.8.1989 by order dated 22.3.1990. While allowing the above writ petitions, this Court observed as under:

``However, a perusal of the compromise deed goes to show that while arriving at the different rates applicable to the different types of land, no specific mention has been made that those rates have been arrived at after taking into account the amount of solatium and interest and, therefore, it is a disputed question whether the rates arrived at by the compromise are inclusive of the amounts of solatium and interest.

(7). Thereafter, it is observed that the above disputed question could not have been gone into by the learned Land Acquisition Officer and, in these circumstances, the matter was referred to the Civil Court. After directions from this Court in the above Writ Petition No. 180/90, the learned Land Acquisition Officer sent the matter to the Civil Court under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document