IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11700 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAYADEVAN, MELOOTTU VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (LA), KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT NO.II, KOTTIYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11700/2009-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD NO.172/87 IN L.A.CASE NO.88/87 & 89/87. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/12/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 35744/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/12/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 11700 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “1.issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P1 to the extent to which it denies the petitioner interest over solatium and the amount arrived at under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P4 so far as it denies interest over the components other than land value mentioned in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act”. 3. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents to award statutory interest over all the amount arrived at under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) within a time frame. 4. to pass such other order or direction this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice of this case”. The short issue raised here is whether in answering Wpc 11700/2009 2 application under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relief by way of interest on solatium and other statutory add ons, if any, could be refused merely on the ground that in the judgment/award of the reference court, which is relied on in support of the application under Section 28A(1), the court had not made an order granting interest. This issue has necessarily to be answered in favour of the claimant and against the State. This is because the statutory entitlement to the benefits by way of solatium, interest, interest on solatium etc, are not dependent on any order granting it, to be made either by the Collector or the Court. Even in cases where it has not been expressly granted, the flow of the statute is that it shall be paid. Otherwise, it would amount to acquisition and deprivation of property without the authority of law, infringing Article 300A of the Constitution. This issue no more survives the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sunder V. Union of India(2001(3) KLT 489). In the result, the writ petition is allowed granting reliefs 1 and 2 as sought for and it is further ordered that amounts payable in terms of the aforesaid shall be released within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is Wpc 11700/2009 3 so directed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/7