1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 1988 (arising out of L.A.R.No.27/82) State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Smt. Suman Mashruwala Since deceased through her legal heirs: 1. Unmesh Mashruwala 2. Sanjay Mashruwala 3. Rajesh Mashruwala All major, havig address at A-1, Beach House, Gandhirgram Road, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049. Respondents Ms. S.P.Manchekar,AGP, for the Appellant-State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 25th September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal preferred by the State is directed mainly against enhanced rate of compensation, the grant of additional component of 12% per annum under section 23(1-A) and solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is contended that the notification in respect of acquisition of land was issued under Section 4 on 4.2.1970 and the award was passed under section 11 on 3.8.1981. The Reference court, while enhancing the 2 rate of compensation from Rs.3.60 ps. Per sq. mtr. to Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. granted additional component at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification and also 30% solatium. 2. As far as the rate is concerned,in several cases, this Court had held that the compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. mtr. for the land acquired at Nerul is just and reasonable and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the same. Similarly, about the solatium a the rate of 30% per annum also no exception can be taken in view of the language of Section 23(2) as held in Kashiben Bhikabai & Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer (2002) 2 SCC 605 as well as Union of India vs Raghubir Singh. (1989) 2 SCC 754. In Union of India vs. Filip Tiago de Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277, it was held that under Section 23(1)(A), if the acquisition proceeding was pending before the Collector as on 30.4.1982 in which the Collector had not made an award before that date, the additional component at the rate of 12% per annum will have to be granted. However, if the award was already passed before 30.4.1982, the proceeding could not be said to be pending and therefore additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum could not be granted. This authority was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kasiben (supra). In view of the language of section 23(1)(A), as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the impugned 3 order granting additional component at the rate of 12% per annum cannot be sustained because the land acquisition proceeding was already completed and the award was passed prior to 30.4.1982. To that extent, the Appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order granting additional component at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) is hereby set aside. The compensation should be paid to the respondent as per the rate fixed by the Reference Court with additional solatium at the rate of 30% thereon after deduction of the amount already paid. The award be modified accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)