M. R. Shah, J. - (1.) The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court in the present Special Leave Petitions is as to whether the solatium as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act') has to be calculated only on the market value and assets or the sum total of the market value, the assets and additional 12% per annum on the market value stipulated under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act?
(2.) That the lands owned by the petitioner herein came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Metro railway. That the said land was acquired under the provisions of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the '1978 Act'). That the Central Government published a notification under Section 10 of the 1978 Act, inter alia, declaring that the said land should be acquired in connection with the aforesaid project. That, in the year 2014, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13(1) of the 1978 Act, inter alia, praying for the compensation in respect of the said land and the same was registered as Claim Case No. NGA-32 OF 2014. That, on 05.12.2016, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the original claim, inter alia, praying for compensation to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. That the said application for amendment came to be allowed. 2.1 That by an order dated 16.12.2016, the competent authority disposed of the aforesaid claim case awarding Rs.1,48,29,312/- towards the market value and a sum of Rs.6,75,526/- within two months from the date of the order on account of value of structure.2.2 That, on 11.01.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13(3) of the 1978 Act before the Appellate Authority, which was registered as Claim Appeal No. 1 of 2017. That, by an order dated 28.02.2018, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and enhanced the amount of compensation and held that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.6,20,52,215/- on account of market value of the land and a further sum of Rs.6,75,526/- on account of value of structure. The Appellate Authority also held that the petitioner shall be entitled to a further sum at the rate of 12% per annum on market value in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act and also held that the petitioner is entitled to get solatium @ 100% on the total compensation i.e. Rs.6,20,52,215/- (market value) + Rs.6,75,526/- (on account of value of structure) + Rs.3,66,91,239/- (further sum at the rate of 12% per annum on market value in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act) = Rs.9,94,18,980/-.2.3 That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.02.2018, the respondent preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta, being C.O. No. 1895 of 2018. That, by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2019, the High Court has partly allowed the said revision application and has held that the solatium payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act has to be calculated only on the market value of the land acquired and the assets thereon and not on the total arrived at upon assessing the market value with additional 12% per annum thereon (further sum payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act). Consequently, the High Court has directed to reassess the total amount payable to the petitioner.2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding and directing to determine and to pay the solatium payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act on the market value of the land acquired and the assets thereon and excluding the further sum at the rate of 12% per annum payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the original owner-the petitioner herein has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.2.5 Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is as to whether the solatium payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act has to be calculated only on the market value of the land acquired and the assets thereon or on the total arrived at upon adding the additional 12% per annum on the market value?
(3.) Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner -original land owner-original claimant has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that the solatium payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act has to be calculated only on the market value of the land acquired and the assets thereon, and not on the total arrived at upon adding further sum of 12% per annum on market value. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding that the solatium has to be calculated only on the market value arrived at and the assets thereon and not on the total arrived at adding the further sum of 12% per annum on market value, is against the scheme of the 2013 Act for awarding the compensation for the land acquired.3.2 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of solatium stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, which is to the amount equivalent to 100% of the compensation amount, shall include additional 12% per annum on the market value stipulated under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act.3.3 It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, as per the scheme of the 2013 Act, Section 26 of the Act refers to the manner in which the market value as defined in Section 3(u) has to be determined by the Collector. Section 27 of the Act refers to the determination of the amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner by including all assets attached to the land. It is submitted that Section 28 provides the parameters to be considered by the Collector for determining the amount of the compensation to be awarded for the land acquired. It is submitted that the expression "compensation" has to be defined in the Act and would therefore take into its fold any amount statutorily due and payable to a person whose land stands acquired under the Act.3.4 It is submitted by Shri Ahmadi appearing on behalf of the petitioner that sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act provides, inter alia, that the solatium amount is equivalent to 100% of the compensation amount. It is submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act expressly provides that the Collector shall award in addition to the market value of the land under Section 26, an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value. It is submitted that said amount at the rate of 12% is yet another kind of compensation which is payable to the land owner in lieu of the compulsory acquisition. It is submitted that, therefore, while construing/considering the "total compensation" under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the sum payable at the rate of 12% per annum under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act is required to be included. It is submitted that the sum payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act shall be a part of the award while determining and paying and compensation for the land acquired. It is submitted that as 2013 Act is a beneficiary Act, a liberal interpretation should be adopted in favour of the land owners whose land has been compulsory acquired.3.5 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Act also provides that solatium shall be 100% over the "total compensation" amount. It is submitted that, therefore, a beneficial construction of sub-section (3) of Section 69 would illustrate the legislative intent which is that solatium under sub-section (1) of Section 30 would be the aggregate of 100% of the market value determined under Section 26, the asset value determined under Section 27 of the Act and 12% of the market value determined under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. He submitted that any interpretation contrary to the above, would be contrary to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2013 Act.3.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present Special Leave Petitions.;