A claimant or decree-holder who has received the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so awarded cannot claim interest on the amount he has already received merely because the Appellate Court has enhanced the compensation and has made payable additional compensation
There were two issues before the Court, namely, whether the Award passed by the Reference Court is based against the recognized principles of law? And whether the Court-below committed any illegality in awarding the amount under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act)?
In regard to the first issue, primarily based on enhancement of compensation so awarded, while affirming the award made by Collector, it was observed that the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants and when there is a failure on the part of Claimants in leading cogent and proper evidence to support their cases, the claims for enhancement of compensation is liable to be rejected.
In respect to the next question the Court observed that solatium is an integral part of compensation and its award is mandatory. Section 34 of the Act postulates award of interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession only until it is paid or deposited. The statutory provision that interest would run from the date the Collector takes possession till the particular amount is deposited, ensures that the claimant is recompensed adequately. Section 28 ensures recompense at each stage of enhancement of compensation. A claimant or decree-holder who has received the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so awarded cannot claim interest on the amount he has already received merely because the Appellate Court has enhanced the compensation and has made payable additional compensation. Section 28 of the Act indicates that the award of interest is confined to the excess compensation awarded and it is to be paid from the date of dispossession. This is in consonance with the position that a fresh re-appropriation is not contemplated or warranted by the scheme of the Act.
In the present case, no interest or solatium was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of grant of award hence the same has to be awarded.
[State of M.P. vs. Umrao and Others]
(MP HC, 19.02.2014)