AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ratnam, J.—This is an appeal at the instance of the Claimant against the judgment and decree in LA.O.P. No. 10 of 1974, Sub Court,
Vellore, on a reference made under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An extent of 5.98 acres comprised in
Survey Nos. 541/2, 549/3A, 560/2A and 560/2C in Sathuvacheri Village and belonging to the claimant/appellant herein was acquired under the
provisions of the Act on behalf of the Housing Board for Neighbourhood Scheme near Vellore. The notification under S. 4(l) of the Act was on
27-12-1967. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant prayed that the compensation in respect of the lands acquired should be fixed at
the rate of Rs. 1,000/- percent. However, the Land Acquisition Officer, on a consideration of the sales statistics of similar lands in the village fixed
the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 24.40 percent. Estimating the value of the standing trees and allowing solatium at 15%, the claimant
was awarded a sum of Rs. 17,170.50/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant prayed for referring the question of compensation to
court and on a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the court fixed Rs. 75/- per cent as market value of the land acquired
with solatium of and interest at 4 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment. It is against this, the claimant has
preferred the appeal praying that the compensation should be fixed at Rs. 365/- per cent instead of Rs. 75/- as done by the court below.
The learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the court below ought to have proceeded to determine the market value of the lands
acquired on the basis of Exs. A.l to A. 3 and that its failure to do so vitiated the fixation of market value in the manner done. On the other hand, the
learned Government Pleader submitted that these documents cannot provide the real basis for ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands
as they relate to very small extents or include superstructures and that therefore, no case for enhanced fixation of the market value at all is made
out.
Chronologically, the three sale deeds upon which the appellant has relied are Ex. A.3 dated 27-3-1967, Ex. A.1 dated 9-7-1970 and Ex. A.2
dated 7-10-1977. Ex .A. 3 relates to Survey No. 428 which is not anywhere near the vicinity of the lands acquired from the claimant, as could be
seen from Ex.B.6. Besides, the sale under Ex. A.3 is a composite one in that it takes in the trees, fencing as well as a superstructure. There is no
evidence on record indicating the value of the superstructure or the trees and in the absence of evidence on those subjects, it is difficult to accept
Ex. A. 3 as affording a just or reasonable basis for fixing the compensation in respect of the lands acquired from the appellant. Apart from this the
land dealt with under Ex.A.3 is nearer Vellore town and closer to the Highway and the tharam of the land is also different. Considering these
aspects, Ex. A. 3 cannot be accepted as affording a just or reasonable basis for fixing the compensation for the lands in question. Ex. A. 1 relates
to Survey No. 495 which abuts the Highway and which is located far away from the lands acquired in this case. That sale is in respect of a
developed house plot. The sale includes a superstructure and other movables. Here again, there is nothing to indicate the value of the
superstructure and movables. The extent of the property dealt with under Ex. A.1 is very small, when compared to the extent of the lands under
acquisition. The composite nature of the sale and the absence of evidence indicating the value of the superstructure and other movables and the
smallness of the extent render Ex. A. 1 unacceptable. Ex. A2 relates to Survey No. 497 which again abuts the Highway,. That sale is in respect of
a very small extent of 2 3/4 cents inclusive of several trees. From the description of the property, the sale appears to be of a developed plot south
of the Trunk Road. That bears no comparison at all to Survey Nos. 541/2, 549/3A, 560/2A and 560/2C with which we are concerned in this
appeal. Therefore, none of the documents relied on by the appellant supports or justifies the enhancement and fixation of the compensation at the
rates claimed by the appellant No reliance can, therefore, be placed upon the documents Exs. Al to A. 3.
The oral evidence in support of the claim for enhanced compensation is also not satisfactory. All that appears from the evidence of C.Ws.1 and
3 is that the lands acquired are situate at the foot of the hill and that there is a plague shed nearby. C.W. 1 has not given any useful evidence
regarding the market value of the lands under acquisition. C.W. 3 practically confessed that there is no evidence to show that the market value of
the acquired lands is Rs. 700/- a cent. Thus, the oral evidence on behalf of the claimant also does not establish that any enhancement of the
compensation as fixed,is called for.
Realising this, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fixation of market value, in respect of lands adjacent to the lands in
question, for the very same purpose, came to be considered in A.S. Nos. 1017 to 1029 of 1979 (the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition
Neighbourhood Scheme, Sathuvachari Vellore v. TMT. Logmmal and others), Appeal No. 362 of 1980 (the Special Tahsildar (L.A.)
Neighbourhood Scheme, Sathuvachari, Vellore v. Ganesha Mudaliar), Appeal Nos. 880 and 1180 of 1980 (Murugesa Mudaliar and others v.
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Neighbourhood Scheme, Sathuvachari, Vellore) and Appeals Nos. 265 and 893 of 1981 (The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood, Scheme, Sathuvachari Vellore v. P. K. Ponnuswamy) and that the compensation may be fixed at least on the
basis indicated in those decisions. The learned, Government Pleader, however, maintained that these decisions related to totally different survey
numbers and cannot afford a just or fair basis for the fixation of the market value of the lands acquired in this case.
In A. S. Nos. 1017 to 1020 (the Special Tahsildar for I-and Acquisition Neighbourhood Scheme, Sathuvachari Vellore v. TMT. Logammal
and others), the acquisition was for the purpose of Neighbourhood Scheme and related to Sathuvachari Village, Vellore. The concerned Survey
numbers were 427/, 3/4 and 8,427 /5/9, 424/1, 427/l/6, 427/2 and 427/7 and some wells and the date of notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was
13-10-1971. On a consideration of the evidence and taking into account the situation of the acquired lands in a developed area possessing
potential value for being sold as building sites, this court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 325/- percent. However it is seen from Ex. B 6
that the lands covered by the acquisition under the notification dated 10-10-1971 which formed the subject matter of the appeals in. A.S. Nos.
1017 1020 of 1979, are not situated anywhere near the lands under acquisition in this appeal. Besides, there is almost a gap of nearly 4 years
between the date of the notification tinder S. 4(1) of the Act in those cases and in this appeal. Therefore the market value as fixed in A.S. Nos.
1017 to 1020 of 1979 cannot be adopted as the basis in this appeal. In A.S. No. 362 of 1980 (The Special Tahsildar (LA.) Neighbourhood
Scheme, Sathuvachari, Vellore v. Ganesa Mudaliar), I had occasion to consider the question of fixation of the market value in respect of an extent
of 47 cents in Survey No. 632/2 in Sathuvachari village for the purpose of the Housing Board for Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification under
S. 4(l) of the Act in that case was on 21-3-1971. It is seen from Ex. B. 6 that Survey No. 632 is situate to the south of Survey No. 560, in which
a portion of the land acquired in this case is situate. In considering at the instance of the State, the question whether the fixation of the market value
at the rate of Rs. 75/- per cent is in order, it was held that such fixation is reasonable and cannot be taken exception to by the State. That decision
also cannot, therefore be pressed into service to support the claim for enhanced compensation put forth by the appellant.
In A. S, Nos. 880 and 1180 of 1980 (Murugesa Mudaliar and others v. The Special Tahsildar Neighbourhood Scheme, Sathuvachari, Vellore),
I had occasion in sitting in a Division Bench to consider the propriety of the fixation of the market value of an extent of 5.86 cents/acres acquired in
Survey No. 531 in Sathuvachari Village, Vellore Taluk, for the purpose of the Neighbourhood Scheme under a notification under Sec. 4(l) of the
Act dated 13-10-1971. On a consideration of the evidence, the market value was fixed at Rs. 250/- per cent as on the date of the notification
under S. 4(1) of the Act i.e on 13-10-1971. Ex. B. 6 shows that Survey No. .531 dealt with in A.S. Nos. 880 of 1980 and 1180 of 1981 is
removed from the lands under acquisition in Survey No. 551 and Survey No. 549 by just two blocks, of lands on the west. It is also further seen
that they are equally remote from the Highway on the north. Survey No. 549 is situate adjacent east to survey No. 541, though Survey No. 560 is
removed from Survey No. 549 on the east by about 3 blocks. In A.S. Nos. 265 and 893 of 1981 (the Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition,
Neighbourhood Scheme, Sathuvachari Vellore v. P. K. Ponnuswamy) to which I was a party, the question of the market value in respect of an
extent of 2.76 acres in Survey No. 529 in Sathuvachari Village came to be considered with reference to a notification under S. 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act dated 13-10-1971. There also, following the decision in A.S. Nos. 880 and 1180 of 1980, the market value of the acquired lands
was fixed at Rs- 250/-per cent. It has to be remembered that Survey No. 529 which was dealt with in A.S. Nos. 265 and 893 of 1981 abuts the
Highway, while the lands under acquisition in this appeal, are far away from that. Taking into account the market value as fixed by this Court in
Survey Nos. 531 and 529 and making an allowance for a difference of almost about four years in the date of the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the
Act and the location of the acquired lands in the interior without their enjoying any access from the Highway or other facilities, it appears to us that
it would be fair and just, if the market value of the lands acquired in this case, is fixed at Rs. 175/- per cent instead of Rs. 75/- per cent, as done by
the court below.
The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of solatium at 30% as per amended Sec.
23(2) of the Act and interest at 9% instead of6 per cent, as per the amended Sec. 28 of the Act. Reliance in this connection was placed by the
learned counsel for the appellant upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the
land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, , On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader, disputed the entitlement of the appellant for the
benefits of the amended provisions.
The scope and amplitude of the amendments to Sees. 23 and 28 of the Act came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and
Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, . Referring to Sec. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984), the Supreme Court pointed out that an appeal against the award would be a continuation of the
proceedings initiated before the court by way of reference and when the High Court hears the appeal, in effect and substance, it would be hearing,
the reference and while determining the amount of compensation, effect has to be given to .Secs, 23 and 28. as found on the date of the decision in
the appeal. It was also further pointed out that the provisions of the amended Sec. 23(2) and Sec. 28 of the Act are made applicable to all
proceedings, relating to compensation pending on 30-4-1982 or filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or
the High Court or Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act and that it would not be correct
to say that the amended provisions would apply in relation to an order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court, only if the order is passed by
in an appeal against an award made by the Collector or court between 30-4-1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act. That the
amended provisions would apply to an award made by the Collector or court on or before 30-4-1982, if an appeal against the award was pending
before the High Court or Supreme Court on 30-4-1982 or is filed subsequent to the date, was reiterated. In this case, the award is dated 17-12-
1973 and the appeal before this court, was presented on 19-1-1979 and was pending on 30-4-1982. In view of the decision of the Supreme
Court, it follows that the appellant would be entitled to claim the benefit of enhanced solatium at 30% under Sec. 23(2) and. interest at 9%per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment, under Sec. 28 of the Act. We
accordingly hold that the appellant will be entitled to enhanced solatium as well as interest as per the amended provisions of the Act.
However, the learned counsel for the, appellant submitted that though the decision of the Supreme Court referred to earlier directed the
payment of deficit court-fees, it would be unnecessary to pay any court-fees on interest, as well as solatium,. Regarding payment of court-fee on
interest, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this court reported in J. Pattammal Vs. The Collector of Madras and
Another, to contend that it need not be paid. The learned counsel also submitted that no claim as such for payment of solatium, need be made by a
claimant, but that it is a duty cast on the court under Sec. 23(2) of the Act to award solatium at a certain percentage on the market value as
determined on a claim made in that regard and therefore, the award of solatium cannot be put on par with a claim made and adjudicated upon, as
to justify the payment of court-fees, even on solatium on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed, under the provisions
of the Court-fees Act, Reference in this connection was made to the decisions in Kesireddy Appala Swamy and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Officer, Central Railway, Vijayawada, ; D.M. Jawarilal and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, CITB, Bangalore, ;
Abdul Sultan Hussainbhai Velji Vs. Collector of Ahmednagar, , State of Bihar Vs. Bindeshwar Singh and Others, and Manjeri Kovilakath
Manavallabhan Karanamulpad Manjeri and Another Vs. The Sub Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Malapuram and Another, . Per contra,
the learned Government Pleader invited attention to the decision in J. Pattammal Vs. The Collector of Madras and Another, to contend that the
court-fees is payable in an appeal even on solatium Reference was also made in this connection to the decision of this court in (Koppaka)
Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State, .
Unfettered by authority, we propose to advert to certain general considerations and examine the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and
Suits Valuation Act and the act to ascertain the precise nature of solatium and whether a claimant is obliged to make a claim on that account and
pay court-fee thereon. The word ''solatium'' ordinarily, connotes compensation for disappointment, inconvenience or wounded feelings. It is not
compensation for the acquired interest in land, but a consolatory additional payment, intended to wipe out the disappointment or inconvenience
arising out of and caused by the acquisition. The quantum of such consolatory compensation is no doubt fixed at a certain percentage on the
market value of the acquired land, as adjudicated upon or determined, on a consideration of the claim, made in that regard. Thus, it will at once be
apparent that the determination of the quantum of solatium is not the same as the determination of the market value of the acquired land, though it is
one of the components of compensation. Further, the awarding of solatium is a duty imposed by statute and there is no choice in the matter at all.
The awarding of solatium as forming part of compensation is thus not traceable to the agitation, assertion or adjudication of rights in that regard, but
is dependent upon a decision on a disputed claim relating to the market value of the property acquired. In other words, there is no question of any
adjudication regarding solatium on assertion of rights in that regard: but the quantum thereof is fixed by statute, as compulsorily awardable based
on a percentage of the market value of the property acquired, with reference to which, the claim is made by the owner of the interest in the
acquired property. It follows that only if there is a claim and an adjudication thereon, the question of the difference between what was claimed and
what was awarded, would arise. When the obligation to award solatium at a fixed percentage, on the market value of the property, as may be
determined, after investigating the claim put forth by the owner of the acquired interest in land, as part of the compensation, is statutory, there is no
question of the consideration of any claim relating to solatium by the claimant and the arising of some difference between the claim and the
adjudication, which can appropriately form the subject matter of further proceedings.
Bearing the aforesaid aspects in mind, we proceed to a consideration of the provisions of the Court-fees Act first, under Sec. 8 of the Court-
fees Act (VII of 1870), the court-fee on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in
force for the acquisition of land for public purposes, shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount
claimed by the appellant. Sec. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 providing for payment of court-fee on a
memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation couched in almost identical terms, as Sec. 8, referred to above. Under S. 52 of
the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, a general provision is made for the payment of court-fee on appeals from suits. In view
of the special provision under See. 51, Sec. 52 can have no application whatever to the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal against
an order relating to compensation, as it is difficult to attribute to the legislature tautology and error of repetition. Thus the computation of the court-
fee under See. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955, for purposes of an appeal relating to. land acquisition, has to be on
the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. There is however no indication under Sec. 51 whether
solatium is excluded from the scope of that section. We have now to turn to the provisions of the Act to find out that what is meant by ""amount
claimed"". Under Sec. 3(l) of the Act, ''land'' is defined to include benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to anything attached to the eartently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The expression ''person interested ''occurring in Sec. 3(b)
includes all persons claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land. Sec. 9(2) of the Act provides for the
issue of a notice requiring persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein
mentioned and to state the nature of their respective interest in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such
interest. It is significant that Sec. 9(2) omits any reference to solatium as such, but contemplates only the amount and particulars of claims relating
to compensation for interest in land. Sec. 11 empowers the Collector to conduct an enquiry into the objections, into the value of the land and also
into the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation and to make an award with reference to the area of the land, the compensation,
which in his opinion, should be allowed, and the appointment of the said compensation among the persons known or believed to be interested in
the land etc., The enquiry, amongst others, relates to the value of the land at the date of the notification under Sec. 4(l) of the Act and the interest
of the person claiming the compensation. Likewise, the award contemplates an adjudication regarding the area of the land, the compensation
allowable for the land and the apportionment of the compensation among persons known or believed to be interested, in the land. Here again,
there is no mention of solatium. Sec. 15 provides for the matters to be taken into account and neglected, while determining the amount of
compensation. Under Sec. 23 of the Act, several matters, which have to be considered or taken into account in determining the compensation,
have been set out. In determining compensation to be awarded for land acquired, Sec. 23(l) obliges the court to consider those factors and
aspects enumerated therein. The first and foremost is the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(l) of the Act.
There are also other matters to be taken into account like damages sustained by a person by the deprivation of standing crops or severance or
injurious affection of other property or change of residence or place of business compelled by the acquisition or the dimunition of profits between
the time of publication of the declaration under S. 6 and the time of taking of possession by the Collector etc. Sec. 23(2) of the Act provides that
in addition to the market value of the land as provided in Sec. 23(l), the court shall, in every case, award a sum of thirty per cent on such, market
value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. A conjoint reading of Sec. 23(l) and (2) of the Act makes it clear that though
solatium is a component part of compensation, it is not awarded on an adjudication of a claim asserted, but is made available in every case at a
fixed percentage on the market value of the land arrived at on a claim made in that regard by the person interested in the land acquired. Indeed, in
Union of India (UOI) Vs. Shri Ram Mehar and Others, , the term ""market value"" has been held to have acquired a definite connotation by judicial
decisions and that any addition to the value of the land, unrelated to the open market, cannot be regarded as part of its market value, that the
market value is only one of the components in the determination of the amount of compensation and further that the compensation under Sec. 23(l)
of the Act comprises of the market value of the land and a sum of fifteen (now) thirty per cent on such market value which is the consideration for
the compulsory nature of the acquisition. This also emphasises the consolatory nature of the sum awarded, which is not attributable to any assertion
of a right or a claim for the same. Thus, under the provisions of the Act, though a person interested in the acquired land need make a claim only
with reference to the fixation of the market value of the land acquired and other matters referred to in Sec. 23(l) of the Act and no more, the
amount ultimately awarded as compensation includes solatium at thirty per cent of the market value in every case without any adjudication or a
claim even in that regard put in by the person interested. We may now refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha and Others, . There the question arose whether it would be necessary for a defendant to include pendente lite interest
decreed by the trial court, while valuing the subject matter of the appeal, under Sec. 7(l) of the Bombay Court-Fees Act. Raghubar DayalJ.,
Speaking for the court observed thus at page 460 :
........... Claims not based on any asserted right but dependent on the decision of the disputed right (underlining ours) and reliefs in regard to which
are in the discretion of the Court do not come within the purview of the expression subject matter in dispute in plaint or memo of appeal"".
Thus, the award of solatium is not on the basis of any right, asserted in that regard, but depends upon the decision with reference to the market
value arrived at on the basis of a claim made by the person interested in the acquired land and there is no discretion even left in the court to decline
to award solatium. Cases of express waiver of solatium apart, which are indeed extremely rare, the court is obliged in every case to award thirty
per cent of the market value of the acquired lands as solatium, whether asked for by the claimant or not. In cases where it is asked for, it is only a
reminder to the court. Even if not asked for, the court is bound to grant it unless it is expressly waived. Sec. 24 of the Act catalogues matters,
which have to be ignored in determining the compensation. Sec. 26 sets out the contents of the award and the effect of the same. The award
should be in writing signed by the Judge and should specify the amount awarded under the first clause of subsec. (1) of Sec. 23 i.e. the market
value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4(l) of the Act. It should also specify the amount awarded under each
of the other clauses of the same sub section together with the grounds for awarding each of the said amounts. See. 26(l) of the Act does not
expressly take in the solatium awarded under Sec. 23(2) of the Act. That may be interpreted as indicating that solatium, though forming part of the
totality of the compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired, is really not part of the award. However, it is rather difficult to subscribe to
this interpretation. The expression ""award"" is not defined in the Act. It seems to us that the award comprises of twin components an adjudicatory
one and a statutory one, the former arising out of a claim made and adjudicated upon under See. 23(l) of the Act and the latter statutorily fixed
under Sec. 23(2) of the Act at,30 per cent depending upon the market value as determined under clause one of Sec. 23(l) of the Act. In other
words, solatium statutorily forms part of the award and that perhaps is the reason why there is no reference to Sec. 23(2) in Sec. 26(1) of the Act.
This also stands to reason. We can conceive of a case of enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands. If solatium is not part of the
award, then the count will be helpless to award the solatium under Sec, 23(2) of the Act on the enhanced market value at 30% thereof, for, it
cannot deal with something which is not part of the award appealed against. Thus, even in a case where a case for enhancement of the market
value of the lands acquired under Sec. 23(l) of the Act is made out, the court cannot grant the solatium on the enhanced market value under Sec.
23(2) of the Act. Further, under Sec. 26(2) of the Act, every award is deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such
award a judgment. Inasmuch as the solatium is awardable in every case as part of the compensation for the acquired lands and the reason for
awarding solatium is the duty cast on court under Sec. 23(2) of the Act, that part of the award referable to Sec. 23(2) of the Act for the award of
solatium is also a judgment under Sec. 26(2) of the Act and the award including, among others the solatium has to be deemed to be a decree.
Again, if solatium is not to be considered as part of the award serious difficulties would arise. That part of the award relating to solatium cannot be
deemed to be a decree under See. 26(2) of the Act. That in turn would lead to the position where, compensation under the different heads
mentioned under Sec. 23(1) of the Act alone can be recovered as forming the subject matter of the award and deemed a decree, but not solatium
forming part of the compensation under Sec. 23(2) of the Act. We are therefore inclined to take the view that statutorily, under Sec. 23(2) of the
Act solatium is also part of the award and therefore, under Sec. 26(2) of the Act, the whole award should be deemed to be a decree within the
meaning of Sec. 2(2) C.P.C. the only other component of the award is costs under See. 27 of the Act and fixation of liability for the payment of
the same. Under Sec. 54 of the Act, an appeal lies from the award or any part of the award to the High Court. The court-fee payable under Sec.
51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act on such an appeal, as noticed earlier, shall be computed on the difference between the
amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. It is seen on a consideration of the provisions of the Act that there is no obligation on
the part of the person interested in the lands acquired to claim solatium, as it is the statutory duty of the authorities to award it and include it in the
award. There is, therefore, no question of including the solatium as an amount claimed, but not awarded for purposes of appeal and payment of
court-fee thereon. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the award of solatium is purely statutory duty to be performed under Sec. 23(2) of
the Act in respect of which no claim need be made by a person interested in the lands acquired and it follows that if there is no need to claim, then
there is no need to include it as the subject matter of an appeal and pay court-fee, as even at the stage of the appeal, the court obliged to discharge
the duty cast on it under Sec. 23(2) of the Act whether the appellant has asked for the same or not.
Since we have earlier at length dealt with the question of payment of court-fees on a consideration of the provisions of the Act and the Tamil
Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, it would suffice if we make a brief reference now to the decisions cited at the Bar. Kesireddy
Appala Swamy and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Central Railway, Vijayawada, ruled that solatium is not part of the
award and therefore, in an appeal under Sec, 54 of the Land Acquiisition Act, no court-fee, under Sec. 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees
Act, need be paid on the difference of the solatium, to which the appellant is entitled, as a result of the increase in compensation awarded by the
court and that awarded by the collector, D.M. Jawarilal and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, CITB, Bangalore, dealt with Secs. 48
and 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in relation to appeals under Sec. 54 of the Act and the Full Bench followed the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to earlier. The Bombay High Court in Abdul Sultan Hussainbhai Velji Vs. Collector of
Ahmednagar, has taken the view that solatium being a statutory amount of compensation in addition to the market value, the court has no power to
deprive a claimant of that amount and that the expression ''amount claimed'' has reference to the amount of compensation i.e. the market value
under Sec. 23(1) of the Act and the court-fee will have to be paid only on that amount and not on the solatium. The Kerala High Court in Manjeri
Kovilakath Manavallabhan Karanamulpad Manjeri and Another Vs. The Sub Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Malapuram and Another,
took the view that the award of solatium under Sec. 25(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was not a matter of judicial discretion, but a
statutory duty and solatium had to granted, whether the party asked for it or not and when the court must necessarily grant the relief., it is
unnecessary for the party to claim the same. It was further held that even if a formal claim is made it is only a reminder to court to do its duty and
not a prayer, for adjudication of any controversy and that solatium would not form part of the amount claimed and therefore, it is unnecessary to
include solatium as part of the subject matter of the appeal and pay court-fee thereon. A similar view has also been expressed by Patna High Court
in State of Bihar Vs. Bindeshwar Singh and Others, following Smt. Siawati Kuer Vs. The State of Bihar, which in turn merely followed the Full
Bench decision in Kesireddy Appala Swamy and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Central Railway, Vijayawada, . We may
point out that all these decisions have expressed views which generally accord with what has been stated hereinbefore.
However it is necessary to refer in, some detail the decisions in J. Pattammal Vs. The Collector of Madras and Another, and (Koppaka)
Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State, , as considerable reliance was placed on them by the learned Government pleader. The question referred for
decision by the Full Bench was whether court-fee is payable on interest under Sec. 28 of the Act. It was argued on the strength of (Koppaka)
Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State, that if solatium could be regarded as part of compensation, there was no reason why interest under Sec. 34 of
the Act, should not be regarded the same way. This argument was not accepted on the ground that the Full Bench was not called upon to decide,
whether the solatium is part of compensation. Even so the Full Bench observed that Sec. 23(2) of the Act indicates that the character of solatiurn in
identical with that of compensation and that solatium is in no way distinguishable from compensation for land and the cases relating to solatiurn are
distinguishable. Referring to (Koppaka) Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State, , the Full Bench stated that under Sec. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-
fees and Suits Valuation Act, a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation is not required to include interest. Considering
the question that arose for decision before the Full Bench, we are unable to read and understand that decision as requiring the inclusion of solatium,
as part of the subject matter of the appeal, within the meaning of Sec. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and the
payment of court-fee thereon. That question had not been dealt with at all or decided by the Full Bench and therefore, the learned Government
Pleader cannot seek to derive any support. In so far as (Koppaka) Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State, is concerned, we have to state that the
learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that compensation claimed in the appeal would include solatium, which as we have earlier pointed out
need not be claimed, but statutorily awardable, in every case, as a consolatory payment under Sec. 23(2) of the Act. There is no reference to Sec.
9 or Sec. 26 of the Act or to the other aspects to which we have made reference earlier. The provision regarding tender of compensation under S.
31 of the Act by the Collector and his being required to deposit the same into Court, have largely influenced the inclusion that solatiurn is part of
compensation, which is claimed. We fail to see how these aspects would be relevant for a decision on the question whether court-fee should be
paid on solatium under Sec. 8 of the Court-fees Act 1870 or Sec. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Even on the
footing that solatiurn is part of the compensation, the question of payment of court-fees on solatium would depend upon the intepretation to be put
upon the provisions of the Act already referred to. We are therefore unable, with great respect, to persuade ourselves to accept the reasoning of
the learned Judge in (Koppaka) Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State, as correct. Consequently, we hold that solatium does not form part of the
subject matter of a claim as such by a person interested in the land acquired and that with reference to the award of solatium, the concerned
authorities and court merely discharge a statutory duty imposed on them and under those circumstances, no court-fee need be paid on solatium.
Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 175/- per cent in respect of the lands acquired with
solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of the enhanced compensation. The
appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent indicated. There will be no order as to costs.
M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.
I agree with the views and reasonings of my learned brother. But, however, I would add a few words on the point whether court-fee has to be
paid on ''solatium'' in the present appeal filed by the claimant. Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with matters to be concerned in
determining compensation. Sec. 23(2) of the Act is to the effect that in addition to the market value of the land as provided, under Sec. 23(1), the
court shall in every case, award a sum of 30 percent urn of such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. This
award of compensati6n, in addition to the market value of the land is by way of solatium. Solatium is merely an adjunct to the main amount of
compensation under Sec. 23(1) of the Act and the claim of solatium stands or fails with the decision on the main claim. Whether it is claimed or
not, awarding the amount of solatium, is the statutory obligation on the part of the court. The wordings of Sec. 23(2) are so clear that the court
shall in every case award sum i.e. 30 percentum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. When the
statute itself provides that the court shall award solatium under Sec. 23(2) of the Act, failure to awards solatium will be contrary to the statute.
Disputes arise between the parties on the acquisition of property by the State, either on the point that the acquisition is bad, or on the point that
the market value is low. The court may differ on the facts of a particular case on the rate of the market value claimed by the claimant. But disputes
between the parties never arise on the grant of solatsium for it is the duty of the court under the statute to award solatium on a fixed percentage in
view of taking over or acquiring of the land of the person by the State. In other words, under the statute, solatium is granted to the claimant over
and above the actual market value on a fixed percentage, as a solace for the injured feelings and to alleviate sorrow, 6tress or discomfort of the
person from whorn land is acquired.
The award of solatium cannot be the subject matter of dispute to warrant its inclusion in the memorandum of appeal filed by the aggreieved
person in order to pay court-fee. On the other hand, awarding solatium is a reminder to court to perform its obligation under See. 23(2) of the Act
and thus it cannot be an adjudication of any controversy like that of the market value of the land acquired, between the claimant and the State. I am
of the view that payment of court-fee in this case under the Court-fees Act on solatium does not arise, as has been well discussed in detail in the
judgment just delivered by my learned brother.
Appeal allowed.