NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusDEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LA AND ANR.

                     [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 516


  A    NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
                                    v.
              DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LA AND ANR.
                 (Civil Appeal Nos.1058-60 of 2004)

                         NOVEMBER 19, 2010
  B
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE,
                          JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  c
          Compensation - Enhancement of - Acquisition of land
     situated at village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat in the
     State of Gujarat for setting up a gas based thermal power
     project - Dissatisfied with the fixation of market value of
   D acquired land by land acquisition officer and reference court,
     claimants sought enhancement of compensation before High
     Court - High Court determined market value of acquired land
     @ Rs. 22 per square meter - Appeal by claimants for
     enhancement of market value to Rs. 33 per square meter -
     Held: Market value determined by High Court was justified
.E and reasonable - The sale instances relied upon by the
-,
     claimants to substantiate their claim of market value of land
     at Rs. 33 per square meter were either pertaining to small
     plots or non-agricultural land or related to land in different
     village and were not safe guide for determining the market
   F value of acquired land.

         ss.23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and 34 r- Interest on solatium -
    Power of executing court - It was held in Constitution Bench
    decision in Gupreet Singh that if the claim for interest on
; G solatium had been made and the same has been negatived
    either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment!
    decree of reference court or of appellate court, the execution
    court will necessarily have to reject the claim for interest on
    solatium based on decision in *Sunder on the ground that the
  H                                 516
   NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 517
               COLLECTOR AND LA

  execution court cannot go behind the decree - But if the A
  award of reference court or that of appellate court does not
  specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in
  cases where claim had n·ot been made and rejected either
  expressly or impliedly by reference court or appellate court,
  and merely interest on compen$ation is awarded, then it is B
  open to the execution court to apply the ratio of *Sunder and
  hold that the compensation awarded includes solatium and
  in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to
  be deposited in execution - In the instant case, the prayer
  for payment of interest on solatium was specifically made and c
  was rejected by High Court, however, High Court passed an
  order of enhancement and the said enhanced amount was
) deposited after the decision in the case of *Sunder - The
  reason for rejection of the claim for interest on solatium by
  High Court was that no such interest was payable in terms of D
  decision in ***Maharau case - The verdict in *Sunder case
  and in Gurpreet Singh carving out an exception for making           ..
  the claimant entitled to interest on solatium on certain
  conditions was rendered only subsequently - Respondents,
  therefore, directed to pay to the claimants-appellants interest E
  on solatium in terms of decision in **Gurpreet Singh.

      On 21.2.1986, a Notification was issued under
 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing
 acquisition of land situated at village Mora, Taluka
 Choriyasi, District Surat in the State of Gujarat for setting   F
 up a gas based thermal power project belonging to
 NTPC. On 29.4.1986, the State Government issued a
 declaration under Section 6 of the Act and on 18.06.1986
 took over possession of the land. The land acquisition
 officer determined market value of the land and awarded         G
 compensation @ Rs. 3.50 per square meter for the
 acquired land. The appellants-claimants filed reference
 applications. The reference court enhanced the market
 value of the land and determined compensation @ Rs. 20
                                                                 H
    518    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A per square meter for the acquired land. The reference
  court also ordered payment of additional compensation
  to the complainants with solatium @ 30% p.a. on the said
  enhanced compensation and also held that the claimants
  would be entitled to get 12% additional market value from
B the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e.,
  from 21.02.1986 till 16.06.1986. It further awarded interest
  @ 9% p.a. for the first year of taking over the possession
  of land and @ 15% thereafter. The reference court also
  passed an order expressly recording that the interest
c would not be payable on solatium. Still dissatisfied, the
  appellants filed appeals before the High Court seeking
  enhancement of compensation. The High Court
  determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.
  22 per square meter. It, however, specifically ordered that
0 no interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act on
  additional amount of compensation received under
  Section 23(1-A) and Section_ 23(2) of the Act would be paid
  to the claimants.

      In the instant appeals, it was contended for the
E appellants that in terms of the documentary as also oral
  evidence on record, the market value of the land should
  have been determined at least @ Rs. 33 per square
  meter; and in the light of the decision in *Sunder, the
  awardee/decree holder would be entitled to claim interest
F on solatium in execution even though it was not
  specifically granted by the decree.

          Disposing of the appeals, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. The appellants had produced various
G sale instances to substantiate the claim of market value
  of land at Rs. 33 ·per square meter, which were
  considered by the High Court as Exhibits 102-121 relating
  to Village Kawas. The said sale instances were executed
  between the years 1985-1988. The sale instances
H
 NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY         519
             COLLECTOR AND LA

evidenced in Exhibits 102, 103 and 104 were found to          A
have been executed prior to the date of issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act, but at the same
time, when the said three sale instances took place,
notification for the establishment of the said Gas Project
was already in existence (which was issued in the year        B
1984). Therefore, the said sale instances cannot be said
to be a very safe guide for determining the market value
of the land. Besides, the said sale instances also related
to a very small tract of land admeasuring only 58 square
meter to 60 square meter. The said plots also concerned       c
non-agricultural land. From the evidence adduced, it was
also established that the vendor in the said sale
instances had first converted agricultural lands into non-
agricultural lands and divided them into small plots with
a view to earn profits and sell the said plots to different
                                                              0
persons. Consequently, the said sale deeds also cannot
be said to be a safe guide for the purpose of
determination of the market value of the acquired lands.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in keeping the
said sale deeds out of its consideration. The appellants      E
also placed reliance on sale deed Exhibit No. 263 which
was in respect of land admeasuring 750 square feet for
a consideration of Rs, 9,999/-. The evidence adduced
indicated that the vendee of the said sale deed was in
dire need of accommodation and, therefore, he
purchased the same. That being the consideration and          F
since the said land was also a small piece of land, the
High Court and the reference court rightly did not take
the same into consideration. Similarly, in so far as the
sale deed Exhibit No. 144 was concerned, the same
related to agricultural land of Survey No. 523                G
admesauring 2 acre and 11 guntas situated at village
lchhapore, which was a different village altogether. The
said sale deed also related to a plot of land which was
adjacent to the vendees' own agricultural land and the
                                                              H
   520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A agreement to sale was also not registered and produced
  before the reference court. Besides, vendor and the
  vendee in the said/same case are related to each other
  and, therefore, the said sale deed also could not have
  been accepted by the High Court as reliable evidence on
  the issue of determination of the market value of the land.
8
  The Village lcchapore was also at a distance of two
  kilometers from the acquired lands. There was no other
  evidence in the nature of any sale deed from the same
  Village Mora wherein the acquired land was situated. The
C High Court held that the said sale price of Exhibit No. 144
  cannot be said to be the market value for the acquired
  land for various reasons, viz., it was situated in a different
  Village, and it related to small portion of land (since no
  prudent purchaser would have purchased large extent of
  lands on the basis of sale of small land in open market).
D The High Court, however, held that a deduction of
  minimum 1/3rd from the price fixed for the lands covered
  in Exhibit No. 144 towards development charges might
  be applied to ascertain the market value of the acquired
  lands. The High Court also held that Exhibit No. 144 was
E executed 9 months after issuance of the notification
  under Section 4 of the Act. Having held thus, the High
  Court after applying the formula for deduction of 1/3rd
  amount from the rate mentioned in Exhibit No. 144, i.e.,
  Rs. 33 per square meter, determined the market value of
F the acquired land at Rs. 22 per square meter. The said
  figure of Rs. 22 per square meter was also the amount
  determined as market value fot lands of adjacent village
  Kawas by this Court in another appeal with respect to the
  acquisition made by issuing notification under Section 4
G of the Act on 15.12.1986. The quality of acquired land was
  established from the evidence on record, wherein it was
  stated thcit no agricultural operations were carried out in
  the said land and that only grass, which was used as
  fodder for cattle, was grown in the said land. It could not
H be established by the appellants-claimants that there was
  NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 521
              COLLECTOR AND LA .

 any crop of wheat, cotton and jowar on the acquired            A
 lands. The only evidence that came to light was that
some of the claimants were carrying on the business of
 milk distribution and they were keeping cattle and were
 raising grass on acquired land for providing fodder t<Q the
cattle. The witnesses examined on behalf of the                 B
 respondents, however, clearly stated that the acquired
 lands were badly damaged due to flood waters as the
same were situated in low-lying area and had an uneven
 level. Reliance was also placed on survey report Exhibit
 No. 285 on behalf of the respondents which indicated           c
and described the acquired lands as badly damaged
lands due to flooding of the river Tapti and the entry of
sea water. The said survey report also indicated that a
number of nullhas existing in the area got slightly topped
due to tidal effect and as the acquired land used to be         0
flooded with water from the sea, therefore, it was also not
possible to raise any agricultural crop except for growing
grass in the said land. Another witness examined on
behalf of the respondent also deposed to the same effect
that acquired land was uneven and water had stagnated
on the same. His evidence also established the fact that        E
the leveling work was required to be done in the acquired
land and that a total amount of Rs. 76,86,280 was spent
only for leveling the land. He also deposed that because
of the presence of sulphates and nitrates in the soil of
acquired lands, special precautions were required to be         F
taken while erecting the foundation of the p·roject. The
expenditure was incurred solely by the respondents in
leveling the lands. [Paras 16, 21) [529-C-H; 532-A-D]

    1.2. The market value of the acquired land as G
determined by the High Court was just and reasonable
and the same could be accepted as. reasonable,             '(

compensation for the land which was acquired by th~,
State Government for establishment of     -
                                             the thermal. I~

project. Ther~fore, the contentions for the appellants f~r1 H
                                             - '
    522   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A increase in the market value of the land are found to be
  without any basis and the same are rejected. [Para 17]
  [532-F]

         2.1. It was held in **Gurpreet Singh case that an
    execution court cannot go behind the decree. If,
8
    therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been
    made and the same has been negatived either expressly
    or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree
    of the reference court or of the appellate court, the
C   execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim
    for interest on solatium based on decision in *Sunder on
    the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the
    decree. But if the award of the reference court or that of
    the appellate court does not specifically refer to the
    question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim
D   had not been made and rejected either expressly or
    impliedly by the reference court or the appellate court,
    and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it
    would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio
    of *Sunder and hold that the compensation awarded
E   includes solatium and in such an event interest on the
    amount could be directed to be deposited in execution.
    Otherwise, not. Such interest on solatium can be claimed
    only in pending executions and not in closed executions
    and the execution court will be entitled to permit its
F   recovery from the date of the judgment in *Sunder (19-9-
    2001) and not for any prior period. [Para 20) [534-B-H;
    535-A]

      *Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211; **Gurpreet
G Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 sec 457 - relied on.

       2.2. The impugned judgment and order against which
  these appeals were filed would reveal that the prayer for
  payment: of interest on solatium was specifically made
  and the same was rejected by the High Court. But in so
H far as the market value of the land was concerned, the
 NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PAT~L (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY          523
             COLLECTOR AND LA

High Court passed an order of enhancement and the said         A
enhanced amount came to be deposited by the
respondents after, passing of the order in the case of
*Sunder. Three of the appeals filed before this Court were
barred by limitation but by express orders passed by this
Court, the delay in filing the said three appeals was          B
condoned. On the other hand, the enhanced amount was
deposited by the respondent after the date of decision in
*Sunder and since the instant appeals were entertained
by this Court, and in the facts and circumstances of the
instant appeals, the appellants should be provided with        c
the benefit of the decision laid down in **Gurpreet Singh
case. The order for payment of interest on solatium is
also passed taking into consideration the view of the High
Court for rejection of the claim for interest on solatium
holding that no such interest is payable in terms of           D
decision in ***Maharau. Subsequent to the said decision,
this Court has rendered the verdict in *Sunder case and
the Constitution Bench decision in **Gurpreet Singh
carving out an exception by making the claimant entitled
to interest on solatium on certain conditions. Considering
                                                               E
the factors in toto, and in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the instant appeals, this Court directed
for the payment of interest on solatium to the appellants
in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in
**Gurpreet Singh i.e., from the date of the judgment in
Sunder from September 19, 2001 to the date of deposit          F
of the entire amount in the execution court. [Para 22, 23]
[536-B-H; 537-A-B]

    State of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, JT
1995 (2) S.C. 583 - relied on.                                 G
     Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner & Anr v.
Shivappa Mallappa Jiga/ur & Ors JT 2010 (7) SC 475 -
referred to.
                                                               H
    524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C R

A                       Case Law Reference:

        (2001) 1 sec 211         relied on        Paras 18, 19,
                                                  20, 22, 23
        (2006) 8 sec 457         relied on        Para 18, 20,
B                                                 22, 23
        JT 2010 (7) SC 475       referred to      Para 18, 21

        JT 1995 (2) S.C. 583     relied on        Para 22

C       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    1058-1060 of 2004.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 15.9.2000 of the High
    Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal Nos. 5396,
    5397 & 5398 of 1997.
D
                               WITH

    C.A. Nos. 1061-1065, 1066-1078 & 1080 of 2004.

       Shyam Diwan, Sadhna Sandhu, Bina Madhavan, Lawyer's
E Knit & Co., Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, H.A. Raichura, Chirag
  M. Shroff, R.P. Bhatt, Dattatray Vyas for the Appellants.

         Harin P. Raval, ASG, Meenakshi Arora, Poli Kataki, Mohit
    D. Ram, l.M. Nanavati Associates, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for
F   the Respondents.

      · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By this common
  judgment and order we propose to dispose of all the aforesaid
G appeals which are connected and interrelated, as would be
  indicated from the facts delineated hereinafter.

      2. By issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land
  Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on
H 21.02.1986, land connected with the present appeals, situated
.   NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 525
    COLLECTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

    at Village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat in the State of A
    Gujarat, was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose, viz.,
    setting up a Gas Based Thermal Power Projec~ belonging to
    National Thermal Power Corporation [for short 'NTPC']. ·
    Subsequent to the aforesaid notification, a declaration under
    Section 6 of the Act was also issued by the State Government, ·B
    by issuing a notification dated 29.04.1986 in respect of the said
    land. Possession of the said land was also taken over on
    18.06.1986 and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition
    Qfficer, determining market value of the land a9d awarding
    compensation at · 3.50 per square meter for the acquired land.       c
         3. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land
    Acquisition Officer, the appellants-claimants filed applications
    under Section 18 .of the Act seeking reference to the Court.
    Consequent to the said prayer, reference was made to the
    District Court. The Reference Court allowed the parties to           D
    present their evidence and on conclusion of the trial, passed a
    judgment and order dated 25.07 .1997 enhancing the market
    value of the land and determimng the compensation at ' 20 per
    square meter for the acquired land. It is also to be noted at this
    stage that the Reference Court further awarded interest at the       E
    rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first year of taking over the
    possession of the land in the year 1986, and at 15 per cent
    thereafter. The Reference Court also passed an order expressly
    recording that the interest should not be calculated on solatium.
                                                                         F
          4. Aggrie11ed by the aforesaid judgment and order passed
    by the Reference-Court, the appellants-claimants filed appeals
    before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act seeking
    enhancement of compensation. Cross-appeals were also filed
    by the beneficiary, viz., NTPC. During the pendency of the said      G
    appeals in the High Court, an interim order was also passed
    in Civil Application by staying payment of the enhanced amount
    of compensation. Subsequently, when the appellants-claimants
    filed applications, the or.der of stay was vacated and the land
    owners were permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited
                                                                         H
    526   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C:R.


A   in Reference Court [inclusive of cost and interest] without
    security in full and final settlement of the claims.

       5. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the
  aforesaid appeals by the impugned common judgment and
B order dated 15.09.2000 in which it partly allowed the First
  Appeal Nos. 5388-5408 of 1997 filed by the appellants-
  claimants and determined the market value of the acquired land
  of Village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat on the relevant
  date, i.e., 21.02.1986, at the rate of' 22 per square meter. The
C High Court, however, specifically ordered that no interest under
  Sections 28 and 34 of the Act on additional amount of
  compensation received under Section 23(1-A) & Section 23(2)
  of the Act would be paid to the claimants. By the same order,
  the High Court dismissed the First Appeal Nos. 742-792 of
  1998 ftled by the respondents.
D
       6. The appellants-claimants being aggrieved by the
  aforesaid judgment and order passed by the High Court, filed
  Special Leave Petitions in this Court in which notices were
  originally issued but subsequently, the delay in filing the Special
E Leave Petition Nos. 21068-21070 of 2001 was condoned and
  leave was granted. So far as the other connected Special Leave
  Petitions were concerned, in those petitions also, leave was
  granted and accordingly all the petitions have been _now
  registered as appeals.
F      7. We heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
  when the matters were placed before us for hearing their
  respective arguments. We also perused the entire records of
  the case with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the
  parties to which reference shall be made during the course of
G our discussion and findings recorded by us.

      8. The Chief Project Manager [GTPP], Delhi, made a
  proposal on 16.12.1985 to the State Government for acquiring
  lands situated at the Village Mora, Taluka Choriyasi, District
H Surat for the purpose of Gas Base Thermal Power Project for .
NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 527
COLLECTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

NTPC. The said proposal was scrutinized by the State A
Government and upon being satisfied by the same, a
preliminary notification to acquire lands of the appellants-
claimants was issued under Section 4( 1) of the Act which was
published in the Government Gazette on 21.02.1986. The
Deputy Collector, Choriyasi was appointed as Land Acquisition B
Officer for the aforesaid acquisition proceeding, who after
following usual procedure under Section 5 of the Act, forwarded
his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section
5A(2) ofthe Act. Consequent thereto, the State Government
issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Actwhich was c
published in the Government Gazette on 29.04.1986. The
appellants-claimants thereafter appeared before the Land
Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.
1 ;50,000 per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer, after
considering the records, passed his award dated 18.01.1988 D .
by dividing the acquired lands into three categories and
determining market value of the land in the following manner: ~

           Acquired lands situated at North of Surat-Hazira .
           State Highway at the rate of Rs. 35,000 perhectar~. ·
           i.e., Rs. 3.50 per square meter.                      E

            Acquired lands situated towards South ofSurc;it-
            Hazira State Highway atthe rate of Rs. 32,000 per
          . hectare, i.e., Rs. 3.20 per square meter.

           Acquired lands situated towards interior South of
                                                                F.
           Surat-Hazira State Highway at the rate of Ri:;.
           30,000 per hectare, i.e., Rs. 3 per square meter.

The- Land Acquisition Officer by his award determi.ned the
market value of Kharab land, admeasuring 30 acre at the rate    G
of 36 square meter at the rate Rs. 1 per square meter.

    9. As stated hereinbefore, reference cases were filed ·
which were registered as Land References Case Nos. 118-168
of 1988. All the said land reference cases were consolidated
                                                                H.
    528   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A and the parties led common evidences in the Reference Case
  No. 140of1988. Reference Court enhanced the market value
  of the land and determined the same at the rate of Rs. 20 per
  square meter. The Reference Court also ordered that additional
  compensation shall be paid to the complainants with solatium
B at the rate of 30 per cent per annum on the aforesaid enhanced
  compensation and also held that the claimants would be entitled
  to get 12 per cent additional market value from the date of the
  notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., from 21.02.1986
  till 16.06.1986. The claimants were also held to be entitled to
C get the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first
  year of taking over of possession of the land in the year 1986
  and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum thereafter, excluding
  the amount of solatium till the realization of the amount by the
  claimants. In the said judgment, specific orders were made by
  the Reference Court that no amount of interest shall be
0
  calculated on the amount of solatium. Since some of the lands
  were admittedly of new tenure lands, 5 per cent of the amount
  of award was deducted for the new tenure lands.

       10. Appeals were filed by both the appellants and the
E respondents before the High Court. So far as the appeals of
  the appellants-claimants are concerned, their appeals were
  partly allowed by enhancing the market value of the land and
  determining the same at the rate of Rs. 22 per square meter.
  But the High Court did not grant interest under Section 28 and
F 34 on additional amount of compensation under Sections 23(1-
  A) and 23(2) of the Act and held further that no interest shall
  also be paid on solatium whereas the appeals filed by the
  NTPC were dismissed in entirety.

        11. The present appeals are registered as against the
G aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court. Learned
  counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants
  primarily raised two issues during the course of hearing. The
  first submission of the counsel appearing for the parties
  concerned the market value of the land as determined by the
H
 NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 529
COLLECTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

courts below. According to them. in terms of the documentary           A
as also oral evidence on record, the market value 9f the land
should have been determined at least at the rate of ' 33 per
square meter. The next contention of the counsel appearing for
the appellants-claimants was regarding entitlement of appellants
to payment of interest on additional amount of compensation            B
and solatium.

      12. Let us first deal with the first issue which relates to
determination of the fair and reasonable market value of the
land. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties,     C
as to whether the market value of the land should be
determined at Rs. 33 per square meter as submitted by the
counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants or whether it
should be determined at Rs. 22 per square meter as held by
the High Court, we have perused various documentary evidence
placed on record by the parties. The appellants produced               D
various sale instances which were considered by the High
Court as Exhibits 102-121 relating to Village Kawas. The said
sale instances were relied upon by the appellants and they were
executed between the years 1985-1988. The sale instances
evidenced in Exhibits 102, 103 and 104 were found to h~ye              E
been executed prior to the date of issuance of the notification
under Section 4 of the Act, but at the same time it must not be
ignored that when the aforesaid three sale instances took
place, notification for the establishment of the aforesaid Gas
Project was already in existence (which was issued in the year         F
1984). Therefore, the aforesaid sale instances also cannot be
said to. be a very safe guide for determining the market value
of the land. Besides, the said sale instances also relate to a
very sriiall tract of land admeasuring only 58 square meter to
60 square meter. The said plots also concern non-agricultural          G
land. From the evidence adduced, it is also established that
the vendor in the aforesaid sale instances had first converted
agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands and divided them
into small plots with a view to earn profits and sell the said plots
to different persons. Consequently, the aforesaid sale deeds           H
    530    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C R


A   cannot be said to be a safe guide for the purpose of
    determination of the market value of the present lands.
    Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court was
    justified in keeping the said sale deeds out of its consideration.

        13. The appellants have also placed reliance on sale deed
8
  Exhibit No. 263 which was in respect of land admeasuring 750
  square feet for a consideration of Rs. 9,999/-. The evidence
  adduced indicates that the vendee of the said sale deed was
  in dire need of accommodation and, therefore, he purchased
C the same. That being the consideration and since the said land
  is also a small piece of land, the High Court and the Reference
  Court rightly did not took the same into consideration.

          14. Similarly, in so far as the sale deed Exhibit No. 144
    is concerned, the same relates to agricultural land of Survey
D   No. 523 admesauring 2 acre and 11 guntas situated at village
    lchhapore, which is a different village altogether. The said sale
    deed also relates to a plot of land which was adjacent to the
    vendees' own agricultural land and the agreement to sale was
    also not registered and produced before the Reference Court.
E   Besides, vendor and the vendee in the said/same case are
    related to each other and, therefore, the aforesaid sale deed
    also could not have been accepted by the High Court as reliable
    evidence on the issue of determination of the market value of
    the land. The Village lcchapore was also at a distance of two
F   kilometers from the acquired lands. There is no other evidence
    in the nature of any sale deed from the same Village Mora
    wherein the acquired land was situated. The High Court held
    that the aforesaid sale price of Exhibit No. 144 cannot be said
    to be the market value for the acquired land for various reasons,
G   viz., it was situated in a different Village, and it relates to small (
    portion of land (since no prudent purchaser would have '. 1
    purchased large extent of lands on the basis of sale of small
    land in open marl<et). The High Court, however, held that a
    deduction of minimum 1/3rd from the price fixed for the lands
H   covered in Exhibit No. 144 towards development charges might
  NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 531
  COLLECTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

 be applied to ascertain the market value of the present acquired   A
 lands. The High Court also held that Exhibit No. 144 has been
 executed 9 months after issuance of the notification under
 Section 4 of the Act. Having held thus, the High Court after
 applying the formula for deduction of 1/3rd amount from the rate
 mentioned. in Exhibit No. 144, i.e., Rs. 33 per square meter,      B
 the High Court determined the market value of the acquired land
 at Rs. 22 per square meter.

     15. We may at this stage also add that the said figure of
 Rs. 22 per square meter is the amount determined as market
 value for lands of adjacent village Kawas by this Court in Civil   C
 Appeal Nos. 11924-11934 of 19!:!6 with respect of the
 acquisition made by issuing notification under Section 4 of the
 Act on 15.12.1986.

         16. The quality of acquired land is established from the D
   evidence on record, wherein it is stated that no agricultural
   operations were carried out in the said land and that only grass,
   which was used as fodder for cattle, was grown in the said land.
   It could not be established by the appellants-claimants that
   there was any crop of wheat, cotton and jowar on the acquired E
   lands. The only evidence that has come to light is that some of
   the claimants were carrying on the business of milk distribution
   and they were keeping cattle and were raising grass on
   acquired land for providing fodder to the cattle. The witnesses
.· examined on behalf of the respondents, however, clearly stated F
   that the acquired lands were badly damaged due to flood . ___
   waters as the same were situated in low-lying area and having
   an uneven level. Reliance was also placed on survey report
   Exhibit No. 285 on behalf of the respondents which indicates
   and describes the acquired lands as badly damaged lands due G
   to flooding of the river Tapti and the entry of sea water.
   Paragraph 3.3 of the aforesaid survey report also indicates that
   a number of nullhas existing in the area get slightly topped due
   to tidal effect and as the acquired land used to be flooded with
   water from the sea, therefore, it was also not possible to raise
                                                                     H
    532    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A any agricultural crop except for growing grass in the said land.
  Another witness, viz., Vimalchandra Jeshmal Kotari, examined
  on behalf of the respondent, also deposed that acquired land
  was uneven and water had stagnated on the same. He also
  deposed that when he first visited the acquired land in July,
B 1986 he even found it very difficult to walk on certain portions
  of the land. He has clearly stated in his evidence that the
  acquired land was low level land and water from sea use to
  enter the land at the time of tide and, therefore, water had
  stagnated on acquired lands. His evidence also establishes the
c fact that said leveling work was required to be done in the
  acquired land and that a total amount of Rs. 76,86,280 was
  spent only for leveling the land. He also deposed that because
  of the presence of sulphates and nitrates in the soil of acquired
  lands, special precautions were required to be taken while
  erecting the foundation of the project. It is well-established that
0
  the expenditure was incurred solely by the respondents in
  leveling the lands. The respondents also too took special care
  in erecting the foundation of thermal power station which was
  established there due to availability of water, electricity and
  HPJ Gas pipeline.
E
       17. Having considered the aforesaid e_vidence on record,
  we are of the opinion that the market value ohhe acquired land
  as determined by the High Court is just and reasonable and
  the same could be accepted as reasonable compensation for
F the land which was acquired by the State Government for
  establishment of the aforesaid thermal project. Therefore, the
  contentions of the counsel appearing for the appellants for
  increase in the market value of the land are found to be without
  any basis and the same are rejected.
G
          18. On the second issue which was raised regarding the
    payment of interest on solatium and additional amount of
    compensation, reliance was placed by the counsel appearing ·
    for the parties in the case of Sunder v. Union of India reported
    at (2001) 7 SCC 211; Gurpreet Singh v. Union of
H
NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 533
COLLECTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

India reported at (2006) 8 SCC 457 and Land Acquisition             A
O!ficer & Asstt. Commissioner & Anr v. Shivappa Mallappa
Jiga/ur & Ors reported at JT 2010 (7) SC 475.

    19. In the case of Sunder (supra), this Court in paragraph
23 has stated thus:-                                                B

    "23 ....We make it clear that the compensation awarded
    would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-
    section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections
    thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the
    expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of            C
    compensation worked out in accordance with the
    provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-
    sections thereof."

    In paragraph 24, the Court further held as follows:-            D

    "24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the
    position further clear. The proviso says that "if such
    compensation" is not paid within one year from the date
    of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand          E
    escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the
    said period of one year "on the amount of compensation
    or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited
    before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable that the
    solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of
    interest from the expiry of one year and that there would       F
    be no interest on solatium during the preceding period.
    What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate
    amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of
    the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate
    as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land.        G
    Any delay in making payment of the said sum should
    enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he
    receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into
    different components for the purpose of payment of interest
                                                                    H
       .
    '-J"" .•

    534          SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A              under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the
               legislature when that section was framed or enacted."

       20. The aforesaid decision came for consideration before
  this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh case (supra] and in
B paragraph 54 of the said judgment the Constitutional Bench of
  this Court held thus: -

               "54. One other question also was sought to be raised and
               answered by this Bench though not referred to it.
               Considering that the question arises in various cases
c              pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the
               counsel to address us on that question. That question is
               whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, the awardee/
               decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on
               solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted
D              by the decree. It is well settled that an execution court
               cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for
               interest on solatium had been made and the same has
               been negatived either expressly or by necessary
               implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference
E              Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have
               necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium
               based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court
               cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the
               Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not
F              specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or
               in cases where claim had not been made and rejected
               either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the
               appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is
               awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to
               apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation
G
               awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest
               on the amount could be directed to be deposited in
               execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest
               on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and
               not in closed executions and the execution court will be
H
.NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 535
COLLECTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

     entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment   A
     in Sunder (19-9- 2001) and not for any prior period. We
     also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or
     fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have
     indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our
     power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of         B
     India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this
     question."

     21. Subsequent to the aforesaid Constitutional Bench
 decision of this Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Land      C
 Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner & Anr v. Shivappa
 Mal/appa Jigalur & Ors [supra] after referring to the aforesaid
,decisions held and observed as follows in paragraph 13:-

     "13. The decision in Gurpreet Singh, thus, actually enlarged
     the scope of execution proceeding, in a certain way, on D
     the basis of the decision in Sunder. Coming now to the
     passage specially relied upon by Mr. Hegde, we do not
     have the slightest doubt that the reference to "closed
     executions" does not mean cases in which the main
     proceeding arising from the landowner's claim for E
     enhanced compensation remains pending before the civil·
     court or at the appellate stage. It may sometimes happen,
     as illustrated by this case that the award of the Collector
     or the decree of the civil court is put to execution and
     payments are made in terms of the award or the decree F
     of the civil court and in that sense the award or the decree
     is satisfied. Nevertheless, an appeal against the award or
     the decree of the civil court may still remain pending either
     before the High Court or even before this Court. In appeal,
     the superior court may enhance the compensation which G
     would lead to enhancement of solatium and consequently
     the interest on the additional amounts of compensation and
     solatium. In such a situation, the landowner/claimant would
     be bound to go back to the execution court for realisation
     of the additional amounts in terms of the modified decree.
                                                                     H
    536    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         In such cases, the execution proceedings cannot be
          deemed to be closed and neither was it the intent of the
          observations in paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet
          Singh.

B        22. However, in the present appeals, the impugned
    judgment and order against which these appeals are filed would
    reveal ttiat the prayer for payment of interest on solatium was
    specifically made and the same was rejected by the High Court.
    But in so far as the market value of the land is concerned, the
    High Court passed an order of enhancement and the said
C   enhanced amount came to be deposited by the Respondents
    after passing of the order in the case of Sunder [supra). Being
    aggrieved by the said judgment and order of fixation of market
    value of the land as also against the rejection of the prayer for
    payment of interest on solatium, these appeals have been filed.
D   Three of such appeals were barred by limitation but by express
    orders passed by this Court, the delay in filing the said three
    appeals was condoned. We have not been shown any
    conclusive proof to come to the decision that the execution
    cases were closed. On the other hand, the enhanced amount
E   was deposited by the Respondent after the date of decision in
    Sunder and since the present appeals were entertained by this
    court, and in the facts and circumstances of the present
    appeals, we would hold that the appellants herein be provided
    with the benefit of the decision laid down by the Constitutional
F   Bench as stated, particularly in paragraph 54 of Gurpreet Singh
    case [supra]. We have passed the order for payment of interest
    on solatium also, taking into consideration the view of the High
    Court for rejection of the claim for interest on solatium holding
    that no such interest is payable in terms of the decision of the
G   Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
    Maharau Srawan Hatkar, reported in Judgment Today 1995
    (2) S.C. 583. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision this Court
    has rendered the verdict in Sunder (supra) and the Constitution
    Bench decision in Gurpreet Singh (supra), carving out an
H
NADIRSHA SHAPURJI PATEL (D) BY LRS. v. DEPUTY 537
COLU:CTOR AND LA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM,SHARMA, J.]
exception by making the claimant entitled to interest on solatium     A
on certain conditions.

     23. Considering the factors in toto, and in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present appeals, we direct for the
payment of interest on solatium to the appellants herein in terms     8
of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurpreet Singh
[supra] i.e., from the date of the Judgment in Sunder [supra]
from September 19, 2001 to the date of deposit of the entire
amount in the execution court.

     24. Accordingly, appeals stand disposed of in terms of the       C
discussion and observations made hereinabove, but we leave
the parties to bear their own costs.

D.G.                                       Appeals disposed of.