Ananta Charan Sahoo vs Land Acquisition Officer-Cum
2022 Latest Caselaw 3262 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               ARBA No.4 of 2018
                             (Through Hybrid mode)

            Ananta Charan Sahoo                     ....            Appellant

                                               Mr. A. K. Mishra, Advocate

                                       -versus-
            Land Acquisition Officer-cum-    ....                Respondents
            Competent Authority (NH), Khurda
            and others

                                                  Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate

                      CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             13.07.2022

 09.         1.    Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of
             appellant.

2. On 23rd November, 2021 he had submitted, the appeal was preferred against judgment dated 14th December, 2017 made under section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appellant having been aggrieved by the award had approached the District Judge under section 34. The learned Judge did not fully appreciate contentions of appellant and, therefore, the appeal.

3. Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents. On 23rd November, 2021 he had submitted, his clients had also filed appeal against impugned judgment

// 2 //

because the learned Judge dealt with the challenge as if it was an appeal. He submitted, the Court adjudicating a challenge under section 34 does not have powers of appellate Court.

4. It transpires that respondents' appeal ARBA no.18 of 2018 stood dismissed by operation of order dated 13th July, 2018 made by coordinate Bench. By said order the defects had been directed to be removed within a week, failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

5. In facts and circumstances above, Court made observations and queries of parties. Respondents were to issue instruction regarding whether they would forbear from taking steps to restore its appeal. This direction because appellant had assured Court that on such consideration, appellant would not press his appeal. Adjournment was granted for parties to take their positions and submit.

6. Respondents filed restoration application in their appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 28th March, 2022. In the circumstances, Mr. Mishra submits in fairness, his client abandons all other grounds of appeal except, claim for interest on solatium.

7. He relies on judgments of the Supreme Court.

(i) Sunder v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211. He relies on paragraph 27 of India Law Library Web Version print. In said paragraph, the Court quoted reasoning advanced by a Division Bench of Punjab and

// 3 //

Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Kailashwati and others, reported in AIR 1980 P H 117 on provision in section 28 in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court expressed view that statement of law (of the Division Bench) is in accord with sound principles of interpretation. Hence, the Court declared person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.

(ii) Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304, paragraph 41 of Ind Law Lib print. In this judgment, the Court declared that provisions of the 1894 Act relating to solatium and interest contained in, inter alia, section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. He submits, by Sunder (supra) there was declaration of law that interest is payable on solatium and thereafter by Tarsem Singh (supra), same was made applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.

8. Mr. Pattanaik relies on views taken in State of Orissa v. Bhagyadhar Dash, reported in AIR 2016 Orissa 128, wherein it was said, inter alia, Court while considering the question whether an award passed by the arbitrator should be set aside or not, does not examine the question as an appellate Court. He submits, there can be no modification made to the award, neither by the Court deciding the challenge under section 34 in the 1996 Act nor thereafter under section 37 by the appellate Court. He submits further, if there is interference in appeal, the entire award must be set aside and for

// 4 //

determination of the amount of compensation, the dispute be restored to the arbitrator.

9. Appellant has not urged in the appeal any other ground but omission by the Tribunal to have awarded interest on solatium.

10. Court has no doubt regarding declarations of law made by the Supreme Court that interest is payable on solatium in acquisitions under the 1956 Act. Here the acquisition was made under the Act of 1956. In the circumstances, the omission on part of the Tribunal to award interest on solatium is absent as not there in the award. Therefore, on restoration of the dispute for determination of interest on solatium, award thereon will become a severable part. Court has ascertained that the arbitrator had awarded additional compensation at 12% from 25th June, 2010 to 8th April, 2011 at Rs.7,24,000/- calculated on principal being the land value Rs.76,26,000/- and in said award there was also award for solatium on 30% of Rs.22,07,040/- but no interest thereon. As such, only the determination of interest on solatium is restored to the arbitrator, for expeditious determination and award thereon.

11. Impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2017 is modified to above extent.

12. The appeal is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

RKS