- (1.) Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal.
(2.) In the present appeals, it is the grievance of the appellants that the Reference Court, though did grant interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, the Act) on the enhanced amount of compensation, did not grant such interest on the amount to which the appellants are held entitled under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act.
(3.) Shri Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, invited my attention to order clauses 5 and 6 in each of the LARs and submitted that the Reference Court has erred in awarding the interest only on the enhanced amount of market value by specifying the amount so determined by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel, taking me through the provisions of Sections 23, 23(1A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Act, submitted that the interest is liable to be granted under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act by adding into enhanced amount of compensation the amount of 12% component as well as 30% solatium. In order to support his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India, 2001 AIR(SC) 3516. In the aforesaid matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that, "in calculating the interest, as mentioned in provisions under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, amount of solatium, as envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Act, should be included.";