IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11637 of 2009(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THANKAMANI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT: ------------------- SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT NO.II, KOTTIYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.11637/2009-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF AWARD NO.174/87 IN LA CASENO.90/87. EXT.P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.35743/08. EXT.P3 COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 16-12-2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE dkr THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11637 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner applied for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land value was re-fixed, however, since the award of the reference court relied on by him in support of his application under Section 28-A(1) did not contain an order directing payment of interest on solatium, the petitioner was refused amounts under that head. This is under challenge. 2.On an earlier round, this Court had directed that the petitioner's request for reference under Section 28-A (1) be considered and also that interest due on the compensation be paid. The entitlement under Section 28-A (1) for re- determination of the amount of compensation is dependent thereon, the land value fixed in a reference court which forms, later, the foundation of the application under Section 28-A. Though the word 'compensation' is used, there is no other way WPC.11637/09 Page numbers of looking at it to hold that what is relevant for the application under Section 28-A is the land value fixed by the reference court in relation to the land covered by a different reference falling under the same notification. Once an application under Section 28-A(1) is allowed by the Collector enhancing the compensation, statutory components by way of interest, solatium and interest on solatium would necessarily follow since that statutory entitlement does not depend upon any particular order of court granting such component but is merely the flow of the statutory provision. Unless such payments are also made, it may tantamount to deprivation of property violating the provision of Article 300A of the Constitution. Therefore, the Collector, considering the application of the petitioner under Section 28-A(1), could not have refused interest on solatium on the enhanced compensation on the ground that in the award of the court relied on by the petitioner in support of the application, no interest on solatium was awarded by the court. With these reasons, this writ petition succeeds. WPC.11637/09 Page numbers 3. In the result, Exts.P1 and P3, to the extend they deny interest on other components other than land value, is quashed and it is directed that the statutory interest on all amounts due to the petitioner by way of compensation to the extent it remains unpaid and solatium shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such payment, any reference made under Section 28-A(3) on the application of the petitioner will stand dropped since the only issue covered by that request for reference was the refusal to pay interest. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.4/7.