Case: Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Virendra and Others

1. Vide order dated, ae Bench of this Court referred this appeal to be heard and disposed of by ae Bench because of an apparent conflict in some decisions of this Court with regard to the competence of a company to file appeal, or to maintain a petition of appeal, for whose benefit, the land may have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Added thereto was the question of the impact of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 whereunder enhanced rate of solatium was grantable as also enhanced rate of interest2. The appellant before us is M/s. Modi SpinningWeaving Mills Co. Ltd. The land involved in this litigation was acquired for its purposes. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on. At that time, by means of the U.P. Act 22 of 1954, Section 23(2) of the Act stood omitted with effect from4 as a result of which the State was not obliged to pay any solatium to the owners whose land was involved in acquisition. Notification under Section 6 was issued on. On, possession of the land was taken. The award came later on. The land acquisition references were decided on. First appeals filed by the landowners in the Allahabad High Court in 1974 were decided on. The High Court took into account a twofold change in law. Firstly, it took cognizance of the reinsertion of Section 23(2) in the Act on2 whereby solatium at the rate of 15 per cent became payable on lands acquired. Secondly, the enhanced rate of solatium being at the rate of 30 per cent and enhanced rate of interest being at the rate of 9 per cent was taken into account having been brought under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Solatium and interest having been awarded in this manner activated they to move this Court by special leave

Reasoning:
5. We have examined both the objections carefully and have also put into play the equities of the case. They passed on the bargain to Modipon Ltd. way back on. M/s. Modipon Ltd. is assumed to have paid every penny of the price settled. We cannot assume, in these circumstances, that the litigation going on between they and the State on the one side and the landowners on the other had not been taken into account towards settlement of the price. Additionally, no specific leave in terms of Conclusion 7 has been taken from us focussing the issue. Besides, we can take judicial notice of the fact that prices in real estate had started soaring in the days when the acquisition took place and have remained soared in the following two decades. Seeing to the injustice on account oft of solatium and higher rate of interest, the U.P. State Legislature had itself stepped in on2 to reinsert Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as it originally stood. The totality of the circumstances persuades us that we should not permit the Company to challenge the impugned order of the High Court.