The court established that solatium is a component of compensation, entitling claimants to interest on it from the date of acquisition, contrary to restrictions imposed by the High Court.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the impugned common judgment and order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 196, 199, 205 and 208 of 2009 (filed against the order dated 15.10.2008 of the learned Sub-Judge, Ernakulam - the Execution Court), wherein the dispute between the parties related to the claim of solatium for the enhanced amount of compensation and interest thereon in respect of the acquired land. The High Court has confirmed that solatium is payable on that portion of land value based on capitalization method of yielding rubber trees and directed to compute balance amount payable under the decree, but awarded the interest on solatium from 19.09.2001, the date when judgment by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sunder v. Union of India , 2001 (7) SCC 211 was delivered by this Court and not for the prior period. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order is seriously challenged urging various legal contentions as the appellant is aggrieved by the denial of the interest payable on the component of solatium under S.23(1A), S.23(2) read with S.28 and S.34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The solatium being the component of compensation payable to the claimant / decree holder, the restriction upon its payment by the High Court placing reliance upon another subsequent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India , 2006 (8) SCC 457 is hereby challenged.

3. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder: -
Various portions of rubber estate of the appellant situated in village Kuttamangalam was acquired by the State Government in exercise of its eminent domain power pursuant to the notification dated 10.10.1978 issued under S.4(1) of the Act for the purpose of Periyar Valley Irrigation Project.

4. In 1980 and 1981 Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation, on the market value of land which were partly based on capitalization method of the yielding rubber trees for the planted area and partly based on the value of bare land on which there were no yielding rubber plantation. Awards included solatium and interest on compensation including solatium.

5. Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellant filed Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) Nos. 425, 427, 428, 429, 432, 434, 435, 456, 458 and 463 of 1988 before the Court of III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam (the Reference Court) under S.18 of the Act.

6. The Reference Court after perusal of the record, by its common judgment, passed an Award on 19.11.1992 by enhancing the compensation partly based on capitalization method of the yielding rubber trees for the planted area and partly based on the value of bare land on which there were no rubber trees. The Reference Court held that the claimant is entitled to get 30% solatium, 12% additional market value from the date of the notification i.e., 10.10.1978 till the date of Award passed against it and they are also entitled to get 9% interest for the first one year from the date of dispossession and thereafter at 15% till realization of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant / decree holder.

7. In some of the abovesaid LARs, payments were made by respondent - State in full and final settlement of the enhanced compensation, solatium and interest on compensation including solatium. With respect to the remaining cases, the appellant filed Execution Petition Nos. 152, 147, 146, 149 and 145 of 1996 befo