The Court dismissed writ petitions by landowners seeking interest on solatium for compensation redetermined under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that the right to such interest arose only prospectively after a subsequent Supreme Court judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.3453 and 3454 of 2006
February 24, 2011
Between: Kishtapuram Erranna, S/o.Yellappa And another
... Petitioners
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh, I&CAD, represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad And another
...Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.3453 and 3454 of 2006
COMMON ORDER:
As the issue involved in these two matters is common, it is expedient to dispose of both the writ petitions by the common order.
The lands/buildings/vacant spaces of the petitioners were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) for Sri Ram Sagar Project under Award No.1/80-81, dated 30.7.1981. The award was subject matter of the reference in O.P.No.215 of 1990 before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. By judgment and decree dated 30.9.1994, the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) was enhanced. The same was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.2011 of 1995 and batch. The petitioners, in these matters, who had not made an application to the LAO under Section 18 of the Act, made applications under Section 28A(1) of the Act seeking redetermination of the compensation in tune with the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The second respondent considered them and passed award on 18.1.1999. The petitioners contend that while doing so the LAO failed to award interest on solatium and additional market value. They, therefore, allegedly made applications on 18.1.1999 itself under Section 28A(3) of the Act seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act to Civil Court, in vain. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith pay interest on solatium.
The second respondent filed counter-affidavit which is similar in
both the writ petitions. While opposing the writ petitions, the second respondent submits that after redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A(2) of the Act, applications under Section 28A(3) of the Act were filed on 16.3.1999 and they were referred to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad vide reference No.B2/1439/99 dated 18.12.2001, which were numbered as O.P.No.368 of 2002 and O.P.No.1120 of 2005. The second respondent also denied the right of the petitioners to seek payment of interest on solatium.
The Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) made their submissions reiterating their respective positions as per the pleadings.
The only question is whether the petitioners are entitled for payment of interest on solatium on the enhanced amount which has redetermined under Section 28A(3) of the Act.
I n Sunder v Union of India[1] a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the State is liable to pay interest on solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act. The Bench unanimously held that, “the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest in the aggregate amount including solatium.”
Therefore to the extent of the principle canvassed, there cannot be any dispute. But in a subsequent judgment in Gurpreet Singh v Union of India[2] it was held that the laid down in Sunder would be applicable prospectively from the date of the said judgment. In these cases, the award was passed on 30.9.1994 and the amount was redetermined under Section 28A(2) of the Act on 18.1.1999. Therefore the petitioners would not be entitled to seek any relief in these writ petitions.
The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(V.V.S. RAO, J)
February 24, 2011 YS
[1] (2001) 7 SCC 211 : AIR 2001 SC 3516 [2] (2006) 8 SCC 457 (para 54)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to payment of interest on solatium on the enhanced compensation amount redetermined under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the principle laid down in Sunder v Union of India regarding interest on solatium is applicable prospectively only after the Gurpreet Singh judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunder v Union of IndiaApplied¶18
(2001) 7 SCC 211 · Who else cites this
Gurpreet Singh v Union of IndiaApplied¶19
(2006) 8 SCC 457 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Kishtapuram Erranna
Government of Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
