CR No.3220 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3220 of 2009 Decided on : 04.02.2010 HSIDC (now HSIIDC) ... Petitioner versus Omkar Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the respondents. Mr.Tapan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of CR Nos.3220 & 3222 of 2009 as common questions of facts and law are involved. Brief facts of the case are taken from RSA No.3220 of 2009. This petition has been filed against the order of the Executing Court whereby two reliefs have been challenged. The first is regarding the grant of additional sum of 12% not only on the market value but also on the solatium as determined under Section 23(1A) & 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the second being the grant of further interest on the interest granted under Section 28 CR No.3220 of 2009 -2- of the Act. A perusal of Section 23(1A) & Section 23(2) are quoted hereinbelow: “23(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, 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 and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.” “23(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided the court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.” Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that the additional amount of compensation @ 12% is not liable to be paid on the solatium @ 30% which is awarded under Section 23(2). As regards second point also, Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows: “28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation: If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court: [Provided that the award of the Court may also CR No.3220 of 2009 -3- direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the dat of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.]” Learned counsel is not in a position to deny that interest for the delayed payment of @ 9% for the first year cannot carry further interest @ 15%. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the learned Executing Court has allowed an additional amount of 12% on the solatium awarded under Section 23(2) as well as to the extent that interest @ 15% has also been awarded on the component of interest @ 9%. Parties are directed to appear in person before the Executing Court on 23.03.2010. February 04, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE