Solatium is not part of the subject matter of a claim as such by a person interested in the land acquired and that with reference to the award of solatium, the concerned authorities and court merely discharge a statutory duty imposed on them and under those circumstances, no court-fee need be paid on solatium.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - SOLATIUM - COURT FEES - WHETHER SOLATIUM FORMS PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A CLAIM AS SUCH BY A PERSON INTERESTED IN THE LAND ACQUIRED - WHETHER COURT-FEE NEED BE PAID ON SOLATIUM - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 9, 23, 26 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AND SECTIONS 8, 51 OF THE COURT-FEES ACT, 1870 AND SECTION 51 OF THE TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1955.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed an appeal against the award of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant claimed that the market value of the land was higher than that determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and also sought enhanced solatium and interest.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation, solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of the enhanced compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced solatium? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to interest at 9% per annum?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation as the market value of the land was higher than that determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The court held that the appellant was entitled to enhanced solatium as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The court held that the appellant was entitled to interest at 9% per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.

Judgment :-

This is an appeal at the instance of the Claimant against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P. No.10 of 1974, Sub-Court, Vellore, on a reference made under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An extent of 5.98 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 541/2, 549/3A, 560/2A and 560/2C in Sathuvacheri Village and belonging to the claimant/appellant herein was acquired under the provisions of the Act on behalf of the Housing Board for Neighbourhood Scheme near Vellore. The notification under S.4(1) of the Act was on 27-12-1967. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant prayed that the compensation in respect of the lands acquired should be fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent. However, the Land Acquisition Officer, on a consideration of the sales statistics of similar lands in the village fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.24.40 per cent. Estimating the value of the standing trees and allowing solatium at 15%, the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.17,170.50 as compensation. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant prayed for referring the question of compensation to court and on a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the court fixed Rs.75/- per cent as market value of the land acquired with solatium of 15% and interest at 4 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment. It is against this, the claimant has preferred the appeal praying that the compensation should be fixed at Rs.365/- per cent instead of Rs.75/- as done by the court below.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the court below ought to have proceeded to determine the market value of the lands acquired on the basis of Exs.A1 to A.3 and that its failure to do so vitiated the fixation of market value in the manner done. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that these documents cannot provide the real basis for ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands as they relate to very small extents or include superstructures and that, therefore, no case for enhanced fixation of the market value at all is made out.

3. Chronologically, the three sale deeds upon which the appellant has relied are Ex.A.3-dated 27-3-1967, Ex.A.1 dated 9-7-1970 and Ex. A.2 dated 7-10-1977. Ex.A3 relates to Survey No. 428 which is not anywhere near the vicinity of the lands acquired from the claimant, as could be seen from Ex.B.6. Besides, the sale under Ex.A.3 is a composite one in that it takes in the trees, fencing as well as a superstructure. There is no evidence on record indicating the value of the superstructure or the trees and in the absence of evidence on those subjects, it is difficult to accept Ex.A.3 as affording a just or reasonable basis for fixing the compensation in respect of the lands acquired from the appellant. Apart from this the land dealt with under Ex.A.3 is nearer Vellore town and closer to the Highway and the tharam of the land is also different. Considering these aspects, Ex.A. 3 cannot be accepted as affording a just or reasonable basis for fixing the compensation for the lands in question. Ex.A.1 relates to Survey No. 495 which abuts the Highway and which is located far away from the lands acquired in this case. That sale is in respect of a developed house plot. The sale includes a superstructure and other movables. Here again, there is nothing to indicate the value of the superstructure and movables. The extent of the property dealt with under Ex.A.1 is very small, when compared to the extent of the lands under acquisition. The composite nature of the sale and the absence of evidence indicating the value of the superstructure and other movables and the smallness of the extent render Ex. A.1 unacceptable. Ex.A2 relates to Survey No.497 which again abuts the Highway. That sale is in respect of a very small extent of 2-/-cents inclusive of several trees. From the description of the property, the sale appears to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document