Rb Dealers Private Limited vs The Metro Railway(Service Through The ...

2.2 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 Authority also held that the petitioner shall be entitled to a further sum at the rate of 12% per annum on market value in terms of sub­section (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 sub­section (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 sub­section (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 sub­section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act). Consequently, the High Court has directed to reassess the total amount payable to the petitioner.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is held that the solatium as contemplated under sub­section (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 sub­Section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Both these Special Leave Petitions fail and deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

...................................J. (ARUN MISHRA) ...................................J. (M. R. SHAH) New Delhi, July 17, 2019 ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14078/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-02-2019 in CO No. 1895/2018 passed by the High Court At Calcutta) RB DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE METRO RAILWAY, KOLKATA Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 14170/2019 (XVI) Date : 17-07-2019 These petitions were called on for Judgment today.

Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and His Lordship.

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.