Civil Rev. No.6425 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. No.6425 of 2008 Date of decision : 1.12.2008 State of Punjab ...Petitioner Versus Sarwan Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr.N.S.Virk, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the respondents. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure P-5), 19.10.2007 (Annexure P-7), 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-8), 1.11.2007 (Annexure P-9), 22.11.2007 (Annexure P- 11) and 8.5.2008 (Annexure P-12). Vide order Annexure P-12, the objections preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. The sole objection taken by the petitioner pursuant to the objection petition preferred by the petitioner was that the statutory interest on solatium could not have been paid from the date of the award. The executing Court on the basis of the report of the Chartered Accountant had calculated the amount and granted the benefits to the respondents. Civil Rev. No.6425 of 2008 -2- It has to be noticed that the Additional District Judge while answering the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ordered the following amounts to be paid :- “10. In view of my findings on the above issues, the claim petition is allowed with costs. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits provided under the amended Act. They shall also be entitled to 30% severance charges and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for loss of business and amount incurred for excavation and lying underground pipe line. As regards the prayer of the claimants with regard to the existence of tree there is no evidence. The same is accordingly declined. Counsel's fee is assessed as Rs.500/-. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.” Thereafter, in appeal by the claimants, the amount was enhanced from Rs.6.45 lakhs per acre to Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre. The appeals preferred by the State of Punjab were, however, dismissed implying thereby that except for this modification in the price of the land the grant of all other statutory benefits which were given to the respondents were upheld. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has miserably failed to show any infirmity in the impugned order. In Sunder v. Union of India, 2001(6) SCALE 405 it has Civil Rev. No.6425 of 2008 -3- been held as under :- “27. We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S.Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana vs. Smt. Kailashwati and ors.(supra). “Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of section 28 of the act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of S.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well.” It is settled principle of law that the solatium is a part of compensation and therefore the interest component has to be calculated on the compensation that has been awarded which includes the statutory benefits, solatium and severance charges. The amounts cannot be segregated for the purpose of interest and that form a part Civil Rev. No.6425 of 2008 -4- of the entire compensation. Dismissed. 1.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss