Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Anjanabai Keshav Jadhav on 9 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:846
80 xob(st)2824-03+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.2824 OF 2003
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.542 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Urdhava Godavari Project,
Karanjwan Dam, District Nashik ... Appellant.
Versus
Anjanabai Keshav Jadhav,
Age Major, Occ. Agri,
Residing at Kalamdare,
Post Harnool, Taluka Chandwad,
District Nashik ... Respondent.
AND
CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.4994 OF 2003
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.544 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Urdhava Godavari Project,
Karanjwan Dam, District Nashik ... Appellant.
Versus
Sukdeo Mahadu Patil,
Age Major, Occ. Agri.,
Residing at Punegaon,
Taluka Dindori, District Nashik ... Respondent.
AND
CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.5087 OF 2003
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.543 OF 2002
sa_mandawgad 1 of 6
80 xob(st)2824-03+
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Urdhava Godavari Project,
Karanjwan Dam, District Nashik ... Appellant.
Versus
Yesubai Jayram Medhane,
Age Major, Occ.: Agri.,
R/o. Punegaon, Taluka Dindori,
District Nashik ... Respondent.
----------
Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Ms. Rukmini Khairnar i/by Mr. P.N. Joshi, for Respondent.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : January 06, 2025
Pronounced on : January 09, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. This group of Cross-objections can be disposed of by common
judgment as the cross-objections raise common issue of
entitlement of interest on the aggregate amount i.e. on solatium
and component computed at 12% of market value which has not
been granted by the Reference Court.
2. Ms.Khairnar, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants
would submit that the First Appeal filed by the State Government
stands disposed of as withdrawn and the Cross-objection survives
for consideration. She submits that the Land Reference Court did
not award interest on the Component granted under Section
23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "Act of 1894"]
2 of 6
80 xob(st)2824-03+
and the solatium granted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the
Act of 1894. She submits that the issue is no longer res integra and
as far as the grant of interest on solatium is concerned, the Apex
Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2001
SC 3516 has held that the solatium forms part of the compensation
to a landowner and the interest awardable under Section 28 of the
Act of 1894 would include the market value as well as the statutory
solatium. She would submit that the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Chandrakant
Mangilal Samdadia reported in 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 397, has followed
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra) and has
held that interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 is payable on
the excess amount granted by the Reference Court under all the
three components of compensation i.e. market value under Section
23(1), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section
23(1A) of the Act of 1894.
3. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned AGP for the Appellant-State
would fairly concede to the settled position in law.
4. The point for determination is whether the claimants are
entitled to interest on the amounts awarded under Sub-Section (2)
and Sub-Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Act of 1894.
5. The Reference Court by common judgment dated 29th
February, 2000 awarded compensation in a group of land reference
3 of 6
80 xob(st)2824-03+
cases. The Cross-objector in Objection (St.) No.2824 of 2003 was
the Claimant in Land Reference No.211 of 1993, the Cross-objector
in Cross-Objection (St.) No.4994 of 2003 was the Claimant in Land
Reference No.213 of 1993 and Cross-objector in Cross-Objection
(St.) No.5087 of 2003 was the Claimant in Land Reference No.212
of 1993. The common Judgment and Award of the Reference Court
would indicate that the Reference Court had granted solatium at
the rate of 30% of the land value and component calculated at the
rate of 12% on the land value and had arrived at the total enhanced
compensation and after deducting the amount awarded by Special
Land Acquisition Officer, has arrived at the total amount due. The
computation shows that there was no interest awarded on the
solatium of 30% granted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 and on
the component calculated the rate of 12% on the market value
under Sub-Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Act of 1894.
6. Section 28 of the Act of 1894 provides for payment of
interest on the excess compensation. In the case of Sunder (supra),
the question which was referred to the Constitution Bench was
whether the State was liable to pay interest on the amount
envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894. The Apex Court
approved the view taken by the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana v.
Smt. Kailashwati, reported in AIR 1980 Punj and Har 117, which
4 of 6
80 xob(st)2824-03+
had taken the view that the solatium provided under Section 23(2)
of the Act of 1894 formed an integral and statutory part of the
compensation awarded to the land owner and in view of Section 28
of the Act of 1894, interest is payable on the compensation
awarded and not merely on the market value of the land and
therefore, the interest awardable under Section 28 of the Act of
1894 would include both the market value and the statutory
solatium. The decision of the Apex Court, thus, settles the issue as
regards the payment of interest on the solatium granted under
Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 and interest is bound to be paid
under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on the amount of solatium.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakant
Mangilal Samdadia (supra) followed the decision in the case of
Sunder (supra) to hold that the interest under Section 28 of the Act
of 1894 is payable on the excess amount granted by the Reference
Court under all the three components of compensation i.e. market
value under Section 23(1), solatium under Section 23(2) and
interest under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894. It was held that
whenever an enhancement of compensation is granted by the
Reference Court in a Reference under Section 18 of the Act of
1894, the Claimant is entitled to interest under Section 28 of the
Act of 1894 on all three components as a matter of right.
5 of 6
80 xob(st)2824-03+
8. In light of the settled position in law the issue is answered in
the affirmative. The Claimants are entitled to interest on the
solatium granted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 and the
component calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value
under Sub-Section (1A) of Section 23, as per Section 28 of the Act
of 1894.
9. In view of the above, the following order is passed:
: ORDER :
(i) All three Cross-Objections stand allowed.
(ii) The Executing Court is directed to calculate interest
on the amount granted under Sub-Section (1A) of
Section 23 and Sub-Section (2) of Section 23, as per
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in light of
the observations made in the present judgment.
(jii) Award to be drawn accordingly.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
6 of 6
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2025 16:20:39
