Case: RB DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE METRO RAILWAY, KOLKATA

2. That the lands owned by the petitioner herein came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Metro railway. That the said land was acquired under the provisions of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Act). That the Central Government published a notification under Section 10 of the 1978 Act, inter alia, declaring that the said land should be acquired in connection with the aforesaid project. That, in the year 2014, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13(1) of the 1978 Act, inter alia, praying for the compensation in respect of the said land and the same was registered as Claim Case No. NGA-32 OF 2014. That, on 05.12.2016, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the original claim, inter alia, praying for compensation to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. That the said application for amendment came to be allowed2.1 That by an order dated 16.12.2016, the competent authority disposed of the aforesaid claim case awarding Rs.1,48,29,312/- towards the market value and a sum ofwithin two months from the date of the order on account of value of structure2.2 That, on 11.01.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13(3) of the 1978 Act before the Appellate Authority, which was registered as Claim Appeal No. 1 of 2017. That, by an order dated 28.02.2018, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and enhanced the amount of compensation and held that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.6,20,52,215/- on account of market value of the land and a further sum of Rs.6,75,526/- on account of value of structure. The Appellate Authorityalso held that the petitioner shall be entitled to a further sum at the rate of 12% per annum on market value in terms of sub¬section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act and also held that the petitioner is entitled to get solatium @ 100% on the total compensation i.e. Rs.6,20,52,215/- (market value) + Rs.6,75,526/- (on account of value of structure) + Rs.3,66,91,239/- (further sum at the rate of 12% per annum on market value in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act) = Rs.9,94,18,980/-2.3 That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.02.2018, the respondent preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta, being C.O. No. 1895 of 2018. That, by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2019, the High Court has partly allowed the said revision application and has held that the solatium payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act has to be calculated only on the market value of the land acquired and the assets thereon and not on the total arrived at upon assessing the market value with additional 12% per annum thereon (further sum payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act). Consequently, the High Court has directed to reassess the total amount payable to the petitioner2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding and directing to determine and to pay the solatium payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act on the market value of the land acquired and the assets thereon and excluding the further sum at the rate of 12% per annum payable undersub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the original owner-the petitioner herein has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.

Reasoning: Therefore, on conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the Act, it is to be seen that before the finalaward is passed by the Collector, the Collector has to determine the market value of the land as provided under Section 26 of the Act. That, thereafter, after determination of the market value of the land as provided under Section 26 of the Act, the Collector has to determine the amount of compensation as per Section 27 of the Act, which includes the market value of the land as well as the value of all assets attached to the land. Therefore, the amount of compensation determined shall be including the market value of the land to be acquired (as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act) and the value of all assets attached to the land. The determination of the value of the things attached to the land or building shall be as per Section 29 of the 2013 Act. Over and above the amount of compensation so determined by the Collector as per Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the 2013 Act, at the time of the final award, the Collector has to impose a solatium amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount, as per Sections 29 and 30 of the 2013 Act. The land owner whose land has been acquired shall also be entitled to, in addition to the market value of the land provided under Section 26 of the Act, an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value. Therefore, on conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the 2013 Act, the final award declared by the Collector shall be in three parts/components, namely the amount of compensation (which shall include the market value of the land to be acquired and the value of the assets attached to the land); the solatium determined and payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 which shall be equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount(the market value + value of assets attached to the land) and the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value (as per sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act). All the three components would be independent which shall ultimately form part of the final award. At this stage, it is required to be noted that unlike the market value (as defined under Section 3(u) of the Act), the Compensation is not defined. However, on reading Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, it is to be held that the total amount of compensation shall be the market value of the land to be acquired as determined under Section 26 of the Act and the value of assets attached to the land determined under Section 29 of the Act. It is required to be noted that in sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the word used is Solatium amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the COMPENSATION AMOUNT. At this stage, it is required to be noted that Section 28 of the Act provides for parameters to be considered by the Collector in determining the compensation to be awarded for the land acquired, which includes the market value as determined under Section 26 of the Act and other parameters, but does not include the amount calculated and payable under sub¬section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. It is also required to be noted that unlike Section 23 of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under the 2013 Act, the award of solatium and the additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value is provided in the different section. Even the solatium payable under the old Land Acquisition Act was at the rate of 30 per cent on the market value and, in the new 2013 Act, the solatium amount is equivalentto one hundred per cent of the compensation amount. Therefore, there is a material change in determination of the market value, determination of the amount of compensation, determination of the amount of solatium and declaration of the final award. Therefore, on a fair reading of the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act, namely Sections 26 to 30, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly observed and held that the solatium amount to be determined and calculated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act shall be equivalent to 100% of the market value determined under Section 26 of the Act plus the value of all assets attached to the land i.e. the total amount of the compensation and shall not include an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. On fair reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the 2013 Act, we are of the opinion that any other interpretation would be contrary to the scheme of the 2013 Act4.1 Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon Section 69 of the 2013 Act is concerned, it is required to be noted that Section 69 of the Act provides for the determination of the award/final award, which shall include the amount of compensation determined as per Sections 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the 2013 Act; the additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value determined and payable under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act and solatium at the rate of one hundred per cent over the total compensationamount determined and payable under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. Determination of the final award which shall be including the aforesaid three components, shall be different than that of the determination of amount of compensation. The amount of compensation is one part of the final award. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the petitioner relying upon Section 69 of the 2013 Act that the solatium amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount includes the amount calculated at the rate of 12% on such market value (as per sub- section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act) has no substance and cannot be accepted. What is provided under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act is the compensation amount and not the total amount payable as per the final award. The total amount of compensation payable would be only that amount compensation determined as per Sections 26 to 29 of the 2013 Act5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is held that the solatium as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act has to be calculated only on the market value plus the value of the assets attached to the land i.e. total compensation amount as determined as per Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the 2013 Act which shall not include the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value as payable under sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.