Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the order dated 4.12.01 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in Reference Case No. 34/87, whereby the Reference Court while partly allowing the reference had enhanced the amount of compensation with interest and solatium thereon for the acquisition of the land in question. In the instant case, it appears that the State of Rajasthan had issued the notification dated 30.4.85 for the acquisition of land in question, for the purpose of laying down the electricity sub -station by the National Thermal Power Corporation of India. The State of Rajasthan also issued notification dated 1.7.85 under Section 6 and 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, which were duly published in the local daily. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter passed an award on 17.3.86 in respect of which the reference was made to the Reference Court at the instance of the respondents -Khantedars for enhancement of the compensation. The Reference Court while enhancing the compensation held interalia that the respondents -claimants were entitled to compensation @ 15,000/ - per bigha for the irrigated land and Rs. 14,000/ - per bigha for Barani land and were also entitled to solatium @ 30% on the amount of compensation and also the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 till taking over the possession, as also the interest @ 9% per annum on the solatium for one year from the date of taking over the possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the payment of compensation.
(2.) THE only issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Reference Court could not have awarded interest on the amount of solatium alongwith the enhanced amount of compensation. However, the said issue is no more res integra in view of the ratio of decision of Apex Court in case of Sunder Vs. Union of India : (2001) 7 SCC 211, in which the Apex Court has held in para 24 as under: - - 24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that "if such compensation" is not paid within one year from the date taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted. In view of the said legal position settled by the Apex Court, the court does not find any substance in the present appeal. The appeal therefore stands dismissed.;