C.R.No.1 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.9.2011 State of Haryana through Collector, Sonepat ....Petitioner Versus Smt Usha Rani and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6/DHs. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for respondent No.7-HUDA. JASWANT SINGH, J The State of Haryana has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby the petitioners-JD has been directed to make the payment of compensation after considering the amount of solatium as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) being a part of market value and pay the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum as provided under Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act on such market value. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the respondents- Decree Holders was acquired by the petitioner-State of Haryana for development of Sector 7, Gohana, District Sonepat. The award was passed on 11.11.1992 by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (for short “Collector”) and the payment in pursuance of the same was C.R.No.1 of 2009 #2# received by the respondents-land owners. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat under Section 18 of 1894 Act, who passed the award dated 5.2.2001 determining the market value at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. yards. Thereafter, execution petition was filed by the respondents alleging that the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge has not been paid by the petitioner-JD (State of Haryana) on account of the fact that the petitioner-JD have not calculated the additional amount of 12% per annum on market value plus 30% of solatium amount as provided under Section 23(2) of 1894 Act, which was, however, disputed by the petitioner-State of Haryana. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh & Another passed on 8.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No.1494 of 2011 (reported as (2011) 4 SCC 734), the present petition deserves to be allowed as the respondents-decree holders are not entitled for the benefit of additional amount of 12% per annum on the amount of solatium as stipulated under Section 23(2) of 1894 Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 has seriously opposed the contention of the learned State counsel and argued that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3516 (1), the impugned order does not warrant any interference. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing C.R.No.1 of 2009 #3# the paper book, I find that the arguments raised by learned State deserves to be accepted. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.10.2004 reveals that the dispute in the present case is/was as to whether the solatium amount is to be added to the market value and thereafter the additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act is to be allowed to the respondents/decree holders or not. Learned Additional District Judge has come to the conclusion that the solatium is to be added as market value of the land and thereafter the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1A) is to be calculated on the added amount. But in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra), the aforesaid reasoning is absolutely wrong and unsustainable as the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the judgment in Sunder's case (supra) observed as under: “Section 23(1) refers to market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as a relevant factor for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that in addition to the market value of the land determined under Section 23(1), the Court shall, in every case, award a sum of 30% on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. Sub-section (1A) of Section 23, inserted by Act 68 of 1984 provides that in addition to the market value of the land, as provided under Section 23(1), the Court shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on or from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in respect of such land C.R.No.1 of 2009 #4# to the date of award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The additional amount under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are both payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on any other amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the additional amount nor additional amount under Section 23(1A) payable on solatium.” After taking into consideration the entire controversy, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under: “In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the orders of the High Court and the Executing Court, in so far as they hold that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is payable on solatium, are set aside. It is declared that additional amount under Section 23(1A) is awardable only on the market value determined under the first factor of Section 23(1) of the Act and cannot be calculated on the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act.” Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid legal proposition and facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat is set aside holding that the respondents-decree holders are not entitled for the benefit of additional amount of 12% per annum on solatium as stipulated under Section 23 (2) of 1894 Act. September 02, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE C.R.No.1 of 2009 #5#