Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Executive Engineer vs B C Veerabhadrappa on 9 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
MFA No. 6331 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 6335 of 2021
MFA No. 6341 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6331 OF 2021 (LAC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6335 OF 2021,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6341 OF 2021,
IN MFA No. 6331/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.4
TARIKERE TALUKCHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S 1. B.S. UMAPATHI
Location: HIGH S/O SIDAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BETTATAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT
TARIKERE, KARNATAKA - 577 228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADV., FOR R-1;
SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
MFA No. 6331 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 6335 of 2021
MFA No. 6341 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.02.2021 PASSED
IN LAC.NO. 11/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT.
IN MFA NO. 6335/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.4
TARIEKRE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
1. E.B. RAJASHEKARAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BETTAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 577 228.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT
TARIKERE, KARNATAKA - 577 228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GNANESHA N.I, ADV., FOR R-1;
SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 54 (1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.02.2021
PASSED IN LAC.NO. 23/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
MFA No. 6331 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 6335 of 2021
MFA No. 6341 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 6341/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.4
TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT - 577 228.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
1. B.C. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BETTAVAREKERE VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT
TARIKERE KARNATAKA - 577 228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GNANESHA N.I, ADV., FOR R-1;
SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.20.02.2021 PASSED
IN LAC NO.13/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION U/S.18(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
MFA No. 6331 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 6335 of 2021
MFA No. 6341 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.)
These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court questioning the
enhancement and assessment of compensation for yield of
trees i.e., mango as well as questioning the calculation on
solatium, additional market value and award of interest in
LAC Nos.11/2013, 23/2013, and 13/2013.
2. The case of the appellant - Assistant Executive
Engineer, Visveswaraya Jala Nigam Limited, Upper Bhadra
Project, in all these appeals, before this Court is that the
preliminary notification dated 08.11.2010 was published in
the Karnataka Gazette on 18.11.2010 notifying several
lands including the lands involved in these appeals in
respect of Bettathavarekere village belonging to respective
respondent-landowners. The final declaration was
published in the Gazette on 24.11.2011.
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
3. The respondent - Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for brevity) awarding
compensation in respect of lands as well as trees. Being
aggrieved by the said award, respondent-landowners of
the respective properties sought reference under Section
18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation both
for land as well as yield of trees.
4. Thereafter, the Reference Court, having
recorded the evidence, enhanced the compensation and
assessed the yield of mango trees and also calculated the
solatium and additional market value and awarded interest
in the respective cases. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellant is before this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Apart from urging several contentions, the
appellant has predominantly urged as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
i) The Reference Court has erred in awarding
additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum
under Section 23 (1-A), solatium at the rate of 30% as
provided under Section 23 (2) and also interest at the rate
of 9% per annum under Section 28 of the Act from the
date of taking possession of the land by the respondent-
SLAO, both on the compensation awarded by the SLAO, as
also on the enhanced compensation awarded by it. In view
of the same, the award reflects that solatium at the rate of
30% has been calculated both on the enhanced
compensation as well as the award that is passed by the
SLAO, when in fact, SLAO has awarded solatium under
Section 23 (2) and additional market value under Section
23 (1-A) on the land value. The SLAO has omitted to
award those statutory benefits on the valuation of the
trees and other fixtures on the land, which according to
the appellant is lawful. Hence, awarding of statutory
benefits under Section 23 (2) and 23 (1-A) both on the
compensation awarded by the SLAO and also on the
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court
is erroneous.
ii) Furthermore, interest under Section 28 of the Act
is to be calculated either on the amount which is in excess
to the amount that has been awarded by the SLAO, or on
the amount that has been enhanced by the Reference
Court. However, in the impugned judgment and award,
interest under Section 28 has been calculated both on the
enhanced amount awarded by the Reference Court
including solatium at the rate of 30% as also on the
amount awarded by the SLAO, which, according to the
appellant is untenable.
iii) The Reference Court has further erred in
awarding interest at 9% per annum from the date of
taking possession of the land and thereafter, at the rate of
15% per annum from the date of expiry of a period of one
year, till the payment of entire compensation as provided
under Section 28 of the Act both on the amount awarded
by the SLAO as well as on the enhanced compensation,
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
when there was no reference to any date significant for
acquisition of land.
iv) The date of preliminary notification is
18.11.2010 and date of award is 18.09.2012. The
additional market value under Section 23 (1-A) has to be
calculated from 18.11.2010 to 18.09.2012 and the interest
on enhanced compensation has to be calculated from the
date of taking possession of land. However, no date
mentioned in the award correlates with the actual date
which has to be taken into consideration, which only
reflects that the award was passed in dark, without having
the benefit of necessary documents. Furthermore, the
interest rate that has been applied in the award is also not
in consonance with law as the same has been awarded
without any rationale behind it. Hence, on these grounds,
the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeals.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent -
landowners contended that the judgment under these
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
appeals does not suffer from any perversity since the
Reference Court after meticulously examining the evidence
and documents on record has awarded the compensation
for the loss of land, yield of trees, interest and solatium.
8. He further contended that the appellant has
challenged the order passed by the Reference Court in
similar LAC.Nos.2/2013, 10/2013, 14/2013, 9/2013,
15/2013, 18/2013, 12/2013, 6/2013, 17/2013, 5/2013,
19/2013 and 30/2014 before this Court in
MFA.No.6332/2021 & connected matters which were
dismissed by this Court in a detailed order dated
07.02.2025 and the said judgment of this Court was
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP
(C)Nos.11779-11790/2025, which were also dismissed
vide order dated 02.05.2025. In such circumstances,
these appeals are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
he prays to dismiss the appeals.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties, the point that would arise for our
consideration is :
Whether the Reference Court is
justified in partly allowing the
Reference made by the land losers in
LAC.Nos.11, 23 and 13/2013?
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties.
11. In all these appeals, the appellant has
challenged the order passed by the Reference Court
mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded by
the Reference Court in respect of yield of mango trees,
solatium, additional market value and interest is illegal. It
could be gathered from records that the other land losers
under the same notification also challenged the award
passed by the SLAO before the Reference Court in
LAC.Nos.2/2013, 10/2013, 14/2013, 9/2013, 15/2013,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
18/2013, 12/2013, 6/2013, 17/2013, 5/2013, 19/2013
and 30/2014 and the Reference Court has enhanced the
compensation assessing the yield of mango trees as also
the interest, solatium and additional market value. Being
aggrieved by the same, the appellant challenged the same
before the learned Single Judge of this Court in
MFA.No.6332/2021 & connected matters. The learned
Single Judge, after considering the evidence and other
documents placed by either parties, has confirmed the
award passed by the Reference Court by dismissing the
appeal filed by the appellant vide common judgment dated
07.02.2025. The said judgment has been challenged by
the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which also
came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025. Such
being the position, the award challenged under these
appeals has attained finality in the connected reference
cases.
12. Since the issues involved in the reference
challenged under these appeals as well as the aforesaid
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
appeals before the learned Single Judge are common and
the lands acquired were of the same village under the
same notification for the same purpose i.e., Upper Bhadra
Project, we are of the view that the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge which was upheld by the Apex
Court squarely covers the issues on hand.
13. The learned Single Judge in MFA.No.6332/2021
& connected matters has observed in paragraph Nos.35 to
48 as under:
"35. This Court would like to refer Point
No.1 i.e., whether the Reference Court committed
an error in enhancing the compensation in respect
of mango trees. This Court already considered the
factual aspects that there were existence of
Mango trees in some of the lands and challenge is
also made in respect of enhancement of
compensation in respect of mange trees in
M.F.A.Nos.6332/2021, 6333/2021, 6343/2021,
6369/2021, 6370/2021, 6371/2021 and
6374/2021 and common ground was urged in all
these appeals that enhancement of compensation
in respect of the mango trees is erroneous.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
36. It is not in dispute that land value is
fixed based on sales statistics method and no
challenge to the same. It is also not in dispute
that in respect of mange trees are concerned,
compensation was determined. It is also
important to note that value of the tree is fixed
based on the inspection report of the Horticulture
department and also the judgment and decree
and also the award passed by the SLO and mango
trees are also taken note of and same is not in
dispute. But the counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that SLO considered as Naati
mango but Reference Court determined the same
as Badami tree and awarded an amount of
Rs.29,125/- per mango tree. The above value is
fixed based on the net yield income capitalization
method and the mango trees are considered as
Badami mango but no evidence is placed before
the Court with regard to the said type of mango
trees. It is contended that the Reference Court
has not considered the award passed by the SLO
on the trees and SLO has passed the award based
on the inspection report of the Horticulture
department. The land owner has not produced a
single document before the Reference Court to
show the yielding of the mango trees. The
Reference Court has also observed that land
owner has not produced a document to prove his
case but on assumption and presumption has
enhanced the compensation on the mango trees
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
and no material with regard to show that trees
are Badami mango trees.
37. The counsel in support of his
arguments also referring the judgment of the
Apex Court contend that compensation is given on
the basis of yield capitalization method, then the
question of granting compensation separately for
land or trees does not arise. The Court has
granted compensation on trees based on the yield
capitalization method, therefore, the
compensation granted by the Reference Court
does not survive. The counsel also relies upon the
judgment of GURCHARAN SINGH's case
referred supra.
38. On the other hand, the counsel for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the
Trial Court has taken note of the factual aspects
of the case and no dispute with regard to the fact
that there were mango trees on the acquired land
and the counsel also brought to notice of this
Court to paragraph 23 of the judgment of the
Trial Court wherein taken note of the fact that in
order to prove the price of the mangoes, has
produced a document/letter issued by the Senior
Assistant Director, Department of Horticulture,
Tarikere dated 04.10.2016 under Ex.P1. In the
said document, it is clearly mentioned that the
mango trees would give fruits for a period of 70-
80 years and each tree would give about 50 to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
300 kgs of mangoes per year and the said
document is a public document issued by a public
servant and hence, it has got initial presumptive
value under law. It is also important to note that
said document was marked without any
objections to rebut the contents of this document
are incorrect. It is observed that the respondent
has not placed any document nor examined any
witness. Therefore, there is no bar and
impediment to rely upon this document. Having
taken note of the said fact into consideration, life
of the mango tree as well as the yield were taken
note of and even variation in the atmosphere and
nature of the tree and quantity of mango and an
average of 125 kgs. of mangoes per tree is
considered per year and same is justifiable taking
into note of the said documents and so also
discussed with regard to the applicability of
multiplier in respect of the fruit-bearing trees and
taken note of the different judgments and
particularly, in the case of SHAIK IMAMBI
referred supra wherein consistent view taken by
the Court holding that multiplier should be 10 and
taking note of the said fact into consideration also
apart from that price of mangoes is concerned,
considered the letter issued by the Executive
Manager, HOPCOMS, Lalbhag, Bengaluru and
same is discussed in paragraph 25 of the
judgment which was obtained by the petitioner as
per the Right to Information Act and said
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
document also marked without objection and
now, the appellant cannot contend that no
opportunity was given and same is also a public
document and it has initial presumptive value and
even rightly taken note of year of the preliminary
notification i.e., 2010-11 notification and
considered the same as relevant year and price
for each kilogram of mango was taken as 46.61
and considered the same as 125 kg of mangoes
per tree and calculated the same in paragraph 26
and arrived for consideration of Rs.29,125/- per
tree. No doubt, there is no any description of the
tree whether it is a Badami tree or a Naati. The
very contention of the appellant that it was a
Naati and the Trial Court also having taken note
of the value of the tree, awarded the same. It is
also important to note that the Trial Court not
passed the order blindly and taken note of
relevant multiplier and also the price of the
particular year and the said letter also issued by
the competent authority.
39. The counsel for the respondent also
brought to notice of this Court the order passed in
MSA No.94/2016 wherein per tree considered as
Rs.1,01,055/- in respect of mango trees situated
within the limits of Nittur hobli and even the First
Appellate Court considered the said value and
same has been considered by this Court. The
judgment relied upon by the counsel for the
respondent is also very clear that a decision as is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
well known as an authority for which it is decided
and not what can logically be deduced therefore,
a little difference in facts or additional facts may
make a lot of difference in the precedential value
of a decision as held in BHAVANAGAR
UNIVERSITY's case referred supra.
40. When the document of Government
Notification was relied upon by the Reference
Court, the very contention of the appellant
counsel that the Reference Court committed an
error enhancing compensation in respect of
mango trees is not acceptable and also valuation
taken particularly taking into note of the
Government Notification to the reference of
preliminary notification year and actual price by
the Horticulture department and multiplier also
applied taking into note of yield report and not
taken note of maximum claim of yield but taken
average of 125 kg per tree and the same would
be from 50 to 300 kg in a particular tree and
when average also taken, the appellant cannot
contend that same is exorbitant and even in the
absence of fact that whether it is a Naati or
Badami mango, there is no any material to comes
to the conclusion that which type of mangoes
were grown except stating that mango trees are
in the land and joint report also does not disclose
the nature of the tree that whether it is Badami
mango tree or it is Naati mango tree and in order
to prove that it was Naati tree also, no material
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
and in order to comes to the conclusion that it
was Badami also, no material and Reference
Court taken note of average method and also the
yield capitalisation method and taking note of the
same, awarded the compensation and same
cannot be contend that same is an exorbitant
amount. Accordingly, this point is answered
accordingly.
41. Point No.2 is that whether the
Reference Court committed an error in making
the calculation in the decree and whether 12% on
the additional market value cannot be granted on
solatium and it should be only on market value as
contended by the appellants and committed an
error in making incorrect calculation. The main
contention of the counsel for the appellant in his
argument contends that the method adopted for
calculation of solatium and additional market
value is incorrect. The counsel also relied upon
the judgment in the case of AMARJIT SINGH's
case referred supra wherein it is held that
solatium cannot be granted on trees and
structures on the land. The counsel and also
contend that calculation arrived by the Reference
Court in the decree is incorrect. 12% additional
market value cannot be granted on solatium. It
should be only market value as held in the case of
RAMACHANDRA referred supra and also brought
to notice of this Court an observation made in
page No.42 that the respondent in the cross
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
examination or arguments have not disputed that
the claimant had grown the mango trees in the
land of the petitioner as on the date of the
acquisition. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that the judgment of the Apex Court is
very clear that the plaintiff has to prove his case
and not depend up on the defendant weakness to
prove his case and also brought to notice of this
Court the discussion made that the respondent
have not examined any witness nor produced any
documents before the Court with regard to the
nature or kind of mango trees and referring the
judgment in the case of HINDUSTAN FOREST
COMPANY referred supra contend that the onus
is on the plaintiff to positively establish his case
on the basis of the material available and it
cannot rely on the weakness and also relied upon
the judgment of RANGAMMAL's case referred
supra.
42. The counsel for the appellant also relied
upon the case of RAM KUMARI DEVI referred
supra with regard to the burden on the claimant
to prove the case and the counsel also relied upon
the case of SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI
referred supra referring paragraphs 7 and 22 and
so also referring paragraph 3 of GURCHARAN
SINGH's case referred supra and also referring
paragraph 56 of MALLA ATCHINAIDU's case
referred supra wherein it is held that the Court
has no power to value the trees separately and
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
award on both the value of the land and also the
value of the trees as per the decision of
GURCHARAN SINGH's case. The counsel also
referred paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case
of BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR referred
supra wherein also GURCHARAN SINGH's case
was referred stating that it is settled law that the
Collector or the court who determines the
compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing
trees cannot determine them separately. The
counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
judgment in the case of AMARJIT SINGH
referred supra wherein discussion was made with
regard to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
and in paragraph 14, it is held that the learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that as this
Court has treated additional amount under
Section 23(1-A) as part of the market value,
additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A)
of the 1894 Act is neither interest nor solatium.
There is no logic in the contention as the decision
in CIT vs GHANSHYAM (HUF) reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 412 case nowhere holds that
solatium is part of market value nor holds that
additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is
payable on the solatium amount. In paragraph 16
of the judgment it is held that the decision clearly
holds that additional amount is awardable only
against the market value and not solatium.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
43. The learned counsel for respondent
No.1 as against the contention of the counsel for
the appellant, relies upon several judgments and
particularly, the judgment in the case of SUNDER
referred supra and the said judgment is a Larger
Bench judgment consisting of five Judges and in
the said judgment discussed in detail regarding
Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act and proviso to
Section 28, 23(1), (1-A) and (2), 31(1) and 26
with regard to interest under Section 34 and 28
and also held that it is payable on solatium,
amount awarded and held that means the
aggregate amount of compensation calculated in
accordance with provisions of all the sub-sections
of Section 23 and hence, includes solatium. It is
also held that intention of legislature is to ensure
that the amount calculated under Section 23
reaches the person concerned at the time of
passing of award or of taking over possession of
the land, any delay in the making of such
payment, entitles the person to receive interest
on whole amount including the solatium. It is also
important to note that Section 23(2) also
discussed in this judgment regarding amount
awarded "in consideration of the compulsory
nature of the acquisition" and held, is qualitatively
different from and so cannot be equated with
damages on account of "any disinclination of the
person to part with the land acquired".
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
44. In this Constitutional Bench judgment,
not only discussed with regard to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act under 28, 23(1), (1-A) and
(2), 31(1) and 26 and categorically held that
interest is payable on solatium also and hence,
the very contention of the appellant counsel
cannot be accepted. Even Sections 23 and 24 also
discussed in detail and also admittedly the
solatium is payable only in respect of compulsory
nature of the acquisition of property and same is
also not damages. It is also important to note
that the Apex Court in this judgment particularly
taking into note of Section 23(1), (1-A) and (2)
held that it does not say that the award should
refer only to amounts awarded under sub-section
(1) of Section 23 and it only stipulates that
reasons or grounds must be specified where
amounts have been awarded under any of the
clauses of sub-Section (1). There is no need for
such a stipulation in respect of amounts awarded
under sub-sections (1-A) and (2) as such
amounts are only the logical outcome or
concomitant adjuncts of the calculation of the
total amount indicated in sub-section (1).
45. The very contention that solatium
under sub-section (2) is not part of the awarded
amount for the purposes of grant of interest has
been rejected and hence, the very contention of
the appellant counsel cannot be accepted. It is
held that question of payment of interest would
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
arise only when the compensation is not paid or
deposited on or before the date of taking
possession of the land. When the Court is of the
opinion that the Collector should have awarded a
larger sum as compensation the Court has to
direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess
amount. The rate of interest is on a par with the
rate indicated in Section 34. It is further held that
when compensation is regarded as a statutory
obligation the academic definitions need not
detract the Courts in fathoming the real import of
it. The exercise can be done with the aid of the
provisions in the statutes. So what the Court, in
the context of land acquisition, has to decide is
how the Act has designed the compensation vis-
à-vis the liability to pay interest. In this judgment
also elaborate discussion was made with regard to
Sections 28, 23(1), (1-A) and (2), 31(1) and 26
of the Land Acquisition Act and also categorically
held that no judicial exercise is required to
quantify the sums mentioned in subsection (1-A)
or sub-section (2) because the section itself
specifies the percentage to be worked out for the
purpose of adding to the total amount arrived at
under sub-section (1). Otherwise Section 26 is
not intended to show that the compensation
awarded would be bereft of the additional amount
and the solatium envisaged under sub-section (1-
A) or subsection (2). It is further held that this
can be clearly discerned from the commencing
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
words of Section 26 itself. It is held that even
award under this Part shall be in writing signed by
the Judge. What is referred to therein is Part III of
the Act which comprises of a fasciculus of twelve
provisions starting with Section 18 and ending
with Section 28-A of the Act. It is further held
that it can be no doubt that all the three heads
specified in the three sub-sections in Section 23
are the sums to be awarded by the Court. Hence,
the words every award under this Part cannot be
treated as the award after delinking the amounts
awarded under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section
(2) of Section 23. What is intended under Section
23(2) is additional to the market value of the land
and in consideration of the compulsory nature of
the acquisition. But it cannot be equated with any
damage caused on account of any disinclination of
the person to part with the land acquired."
14. In view of the above discussion and the
aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge which
has attained finality, we answer the point raised above in
the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are dismissed.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35336-DB
HC-KAR
ii) The Registry is directed to release
the amount in deposit, if any, before
this Court in these appeals in favour of
respondent-landowners on due
identification.
iii) No order as to costs.
All pending IAs. in these appeals stand disposed of.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
