- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. Arguments heard.
(2.) THIS appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, is against the judgment and decree dated 24-05-1985, whereby the compensa tion of Rs. 97,166. 60/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced to Rs. 1,57,372. 80/ -. The appellant's grievance in the appeal is two fold - one relating to the award of Solatium at the rate of 30% and the other in regard to the award of sum of Rs. 10,200/- and Rs. 4,080/- to wards Loss of Business and Rent. As regards the first submission, the learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1985) 1 SCC 582, submit ted that as the award in the present case was passed on 02-03- 1981, Solatium would be awardable at the rate of 15% only.
(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Of ficer (supra) has categorically held that Solatium at the rate of 30% was pay able in those cases only where the award was made after April 30, 1982 and before September 24, 1984. In the present case, the award of the Land Ac quisition Officer was made on 02-03-1981. Thus, we are satisfied that the Reference Court fell into error in awarding Solatium at the rate of 30% in place of 15%. THE impugned judg ment, therefore, is liable to be modified to the above extent. As regards the appellant's other submission relating to award of sum of Rs. 10,200/- and Rs. 4,080/- for Loss of Business and Rent, we gather from para 8 of the judgment that the said sum of Rs. 10,200/- has been awarded for loss of earnings from the said build ing and Rs. 4,080/- for the loss of rent on account of advertisement boards of the agencies. The award of compensa tion for loss of earnings is squarely cov ered by Clause (4) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as follows : "fourthly the damage (if any) sus tained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or im movable, in any other manner, or his earnings; We, therefore, do not find any sub stance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.;