1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1574 OF 2003 Pandharinath Trimbak Metkar, since deceased through his legal heirs: (1) Devidas Pandarinath Metkar and ors. .. Appellants Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr. J.H.Ahuja, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. Geeta P Mulekar, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & R.Y.GANOO,JJ. DATE : 22/01/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER D.B.BHOSALE,J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2000 rendered by the Joint District Judge, Nashik in Land Reference No.36 of 1993. By this judgment, the land reference has been partly allowed and the respondents were directed to pay to the appellants/claimants the amount of Rs. 23,20,790.00 towards enhanced compensation. The respondents were also directed to pay to the claimants interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.14,87,640/-, i.e the excess land value, for the period from 21.2.1992 to T 2 20.2.1993, and further interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 21.2.1993 till realization of the entire amount. 2. The challenge in the First Appeal is limited. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundar Vs Union of India, 2001 (4) Mh.L.J.859, the reference court ought to have directed the respondents to pay to the claimants interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as provided for under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, on the amount of compensation consisting of the land value, the component under sub section (1-A) and the solatium under sub-section 2 of section 23 of the Act. He submitted that the total amount, on which the appellants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 3. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs Union of India (supra) and more particularly paragraphs 19, 26 and 27 thereof. In this case, the Supreme Court has observed that there 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 3 sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act. The interest awardable under section 28, therefore, would include within its ambit both, the market value and the statutory solatium. The provisions of section 28, in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well. Hence, the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The learned AGP could not and did not dispute this position of law. 4. The reference court in paragraph 19 has given detail computation of the compensation awarded in the land reference, which read thus: 1. Land Gat No.312. 2. Area acquired : 1 H.47 R, i.e.14700 Sq.Mtrs. (40% share = 5880 Sq.Mtrs) 3. Rate awarded by the Court: Rs.264/- per Sq.Mtr. 4. Land Value come to : Rs.1552320.00 (40% of Rs. 1109/-). Rs. 444.00 trees/wells. Rs.1552764.00 5. Solatium @ 30% on the market value: Rs.465829.00 6. Component @12% p.a. On the market value: Rs. 403719.00 from 18/12/1989 to 21/2/1992. 7. Total enhanced compensation = Rs.2422312.00 8. Amount awarded by the S.L.A.O = R.101593.00 (40% of Rs.253982.00) 9. Total amount due – Rs.2320719.00 10.Land value awarded by the S.L.A.O = Rs.65124.00 (40% of Rs.162809.00) 11.Excess land value = Rs.1487640.00 In view of the aforesaid computation, the reference court has disposed of the land reference by issuing the following 4 directions. “The land reference is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs. The opponent-Government do pay to the claimant the amount of Rs.2320719.00 towards enhanced compensation. The opponent-Government do also pay to the claimant interest @9% p.a. Rs.1487640/- on excess land value from 21/2/1992 to 20/2/1993 and further interest @15% p.a. From 21/2/1993 till realization of the entire amount. The Opponent-Government d bear its own costs and shall pay the proportionate costs of the claimants of this reference. Award be drawn accordingly.” 5. There is no dispute that the actual possession of the acquired land was taken on 21.2.1992. In view thereof, it appears that the reference court has granted 9% interest per annum from 21.2.1992 to 20.2.1993 and further 15% interest per annum from 21.2.1993 till realization of the entire amount only on the excess land value of Rs.1487640/-. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs Union of India (supra), the appellants are entitled for 9% per annum interest on the excess land value plus the solatium and the component. There is no dispute that the total of all the three heads, in the present case, is Rs.23,20,719.00. The appellants are, therefore, entitled for 9% interest per annum on this 5 amount (Rs.23,20,719.00) from 21.2.1992 to 22.2.1993 and further interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 21.2.1993 till realization of the entire amount. The respondent-State is, accordingly directed to make the payment to the appellants expeditiously. It is needless to mention that while calculating the amount, the concerned authority shall take into consideration the monies, if any, deposited/paid by the respondents earlier. In the result, the appeal is allowed in terms of this judgment. No costs. (R.Y.Ganoo,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)