- (1.) I. A. Nos. 3 and 4 are granted. Legal representatives of petitioner No. 1 are permitted to be brought on record.
(2.) So far as I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. We are informed that as petitioner No. 3 had died pending proceedings in the High Court, an application for bringing legal representatives of petitioner No. 3 on record was also filed in the High Court and that is granted. Accordingly, these IAs. are also granted. Legal representatives of petitioner No. 3 are permitted to be brought on record as they are already brought on record by the High Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to a 3 Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar (1973) 1 SCC 109 and also later two decisions of 2-Judge Bench of this Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 and Narain Das Jain (since Deceased) by LRs v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, (1991) 4 SCC 212. Relying on these judgments, he submitted that for applicability of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, solatium has to be considered as a component of compensation and interest could be paid thereon; and that the High Court has wrongly not granted interest on solatium. However, there is another 3-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 71 wherein a contrary view is taken and it has been held, as seen from Headnote (C), that no interest is payable on solatium under Section 23 (2) or on additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A). For coming to that conclusion, the Bench of three learned Judges relied upon another decision of this Court in P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1995) 2 SCC 305 .;