Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/land-holders being aggrieved by the rejection of claim of interest on the amount of solatium for the land acquired by the State for Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara.
(2.) In the award, the amount was enhanced by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, the operative portion whereof has been quoted by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 26.09.2014, the learned District Judge had quantified the amount of compensation with enhanced interest from 6% to 12% at Rs. 1,22,349/- but while giving solatium on that amount @ 30% quantified the same at Rs. 36,704.70, however, no further interest on the amount solatium was awarded by the court below and, therefore, claim with regard to that interest was rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.09.2014 including quoted portion of learned District Judge is quoted herein below for ready reference:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) Mr. A.K. Babel, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India reported in 2001 RLW (3) SC 419 (Para 23 and 24) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that there is no justification for splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose payment of interest under Section 34, which is to be determined as per all sub-sections of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891. The amount of solatium is awarded under Section 23 (2) of the said Act. The para(s) 23 and 24 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court are quoted herein below for ready reference: "23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says: "On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub- section. "The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay "the compensation awarded by him " to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub- section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount " would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. 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 of 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.;