1. Land acquisition compensation dispute — Award of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1400
1996(7) Supreme 135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
Hira Lal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11740 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8321 of 1996)
Decided on 6-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. K. Amreshwari, Sr. Advocate, Hemant Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 1-4 : Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Sr. Advocate and P.P. Singh, Advocate.
Important Points
A concession made by a Government Advocate on a question of law is not binding upon the appellant. Furthermore, the court held that the District Judge was not competent to award solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act).
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation and Interest
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act)-District Judge was not competent to award solatium and interest as per provisions of the Amendment Act-Concession made by Government Advocate regarding that being a concession on question of law, it could not be binding upon appellant-Quantum of compensation awarded by Arbitrator however confirmed-Simple interest at 12% from the date of decree making the award rule of Court till date of payment granted. (Paras 2 & 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Competence of the District Judge to award solatium and interest — Binding nature of concessions made on questions of law. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. District Judge lacked competence to award solatium and interest — Concessions on questions of law are untenable and not binding upon the appellant. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. A concession made on a question of law is not binding upon the appellant. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed in part — Solatium and interest deleted — Compensation affirmed with simple interest from the date of the decree. (Para 2 , 4 )
6. Is a District Judge competent to award solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
The court held that the District Judge was not competent to award solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act. (Para 2 )
7. Is a concession made by a legal representative on a question of law binding on the party they represent?
No, a concession made on a question of law is considered untenable in law and is not binding upon the appellant. (Para 3 )
8. Under what circumstances should a Revision Petition not be dismissed in limine?
A Revision Petition should not be dismissed in limine in matters involving significant legal questions, such as whether an unwarranted concession on a question of law is binding. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. We are of the opinion that the learned District Judge who heard the appeal filed by the State and the cross-objections filed by the respondents was not competent to award solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act). Accordingly, we delete the award of solatium and also award of interest at the rate and for the periods mentioned in the order of the learned District Judge. We, however, affirm the quantum of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator at Rs. 3.61 lacs (excluding the amount of Rs. 72037.85 paise which has already been paid to the respondents in the year 1982). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we direct that the said amount of Rs. 3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent simple from the date of the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, i.e., the date on which the learned Subordinate Judge made the award a rule of the Court. The said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.
3. We must mention that the concession made by the Government Advocate before the Learned District Judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as Amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. Being a concession on a question of law, it cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. It is surprising how the Government Advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interests of the parties he was representing. We are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the Revision Petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs.
Appeal allowed in part.
*******
