Thirukamu Naicker (Died) Vs Union of India

To pass an order including the Additional amount of compensation as per Section 23(1-A) Solatium as per section 23 (2) and interest as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by amending the Judgment and Decree passed in AS No.595 of 1989 dated 30/10/2002.

¶20

__________ Page1 of 5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CMP No. 9085 of 2006

¶23

For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Natarajan For Respondent(s): Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan Government Advocate (Pondicherry)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to pass an order including the Additional amount of compensation as per Section 23(1-A) Solatium as per section 23 (2) and interest as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by amending the Judgment and Decree passed in AS No.595 of 1989 dated 30.10.2002.

¶26

A perusal of the judgment in the case of Union of Pondicherry Vs. Govindammal made in A.S.No.269 of 1992 dated 30.10.2002 , upon which, reliance had been placed in granting the enhanced compensation to the appellants, would also indicate that the Hon’ble Division Bench had also entitled solatium of 30% on the enhanced amount that had been passed.

¶27

For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

¶28

“11.The reference Court has also awarded a solatium of

¶29

30% on the total compensation awarded whereas it should have

¶30

been only on the excess amount awarded by the Court below.

¶31

Same also regarding the additional amount awarded under

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CMP No. 9085 of 2006

¶35

Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Supreme Court in Premnath Kapur V. National Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (1996 (2) SCC 71) held that no interest is payable on solatium under Section 23(2) or additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. No solatium is payable on additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A). In the Kapur Chand Jain and others V. State of H.P and others (1999 (2) SCC 89), the Supreme Court has referred the matter to three-Judge Bench. Accordingly, we modify the decree, holding that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only on the excess amount awarded by the reference court, i.e. 30% on Rs.7,32,562.50 which comes to Rs.2,19,768.75 totalling Rs.9,52,331.25. The respondent is entitled to this amount less Rs.1,89,263.40, the amount already received by him. He is also entitled for additional interest on this amount of Rs.7,32,562.50. The decree of the reference court has to be accordingly modified. We further make it clear that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of the Apex Court to decide the question of interest, on the additional amount as well as the solatium. In case the Apex Court takes a different view, the respondents-claimants are entitled for the additional amount on interest and solatium without seeking for the further amendment of the decree. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.”

¶36

__________ Page3 of 5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CMP No. 9085 of 2006

¶39

In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench made in

¶40

A.S.No.269 of 1992 dated 30.10.2002, which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the instant appeal, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands ordered as prayed for and there shall be a direction to the respondent to also include 30% of the solatium and interest thereon on the enhanced amount awarded by this Court. No costs.

¶41

17-03-2026

¶42

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶43

kak

¶44

To The Secretary To Government, Union Of India Revenue Department, Pondicherry

¶45

__________ Page4 of 5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis