Holding

Interest on compensation under Section 23(1) and on any excess amount awarded continues until payment or deposit in court, and the claimant cannot appropriate the deposited sum for costs or further interest; no interest is payable on solatium or on the amount under Section 23(1‑A), and CPC Order 21 Rule 1 is excluded to the extent it conflicts with the Act.

Summary

The appellants sought compensation for land acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After a notification in 1973, the Collector awarded Rs 10,080 per acre in 1975, which was later enhanced by the District Judge and the High Court to Rs 24,000 per acre. The High Court also awarded solatium, interest and additional amounts under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1‑A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984, and the appellants appropriated the deposited sums towards costs, interest and principal. The Supreme Court held that interest on the compensation under Section 23(1) and on any excess amount awarded under Section 26 or on appeal under Section 54 continues until the amount is paid or deposited in court, and that the claimant cannot appropriate the deposited amount for costs or further interest. No interest is payable on solatium or on the additional amount under Section 23(1‑A). Order 21 Rule 1 of the CPC is inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act and is excluded. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

When does the State's liability to pay interest on compensation cease under the Land Acquisition Act?
Whether the claimant may appropriate the deposited compensation towards costs, interest and principal in succession.
Whether interest is payable on solatium and on the additional amount under Section 23(1‑A).
The applicability of CPC Order 21 Rule 1 to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.
The jurisdiction of courts to award additional amounts under Sections 23(1‑A), 23(2) and 28 when compensation is enhanced.

Legislation cited

Amendment Act 68 of 1984
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 21 Rule 1, s. Section 2(2), s. Section 2(9)
Indian Contract Acts. 60
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 20, s. 21, s. 23(1), s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 26, s. 28, s. 31, s. 34, s. 4, s. 53, s. 54, s. 55, s. 56

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationInterest liabilitySolatiumSection 23Section 28Section 34Appropriation of fundsCivil Procedure CodeAmendment Act 68 of 1984

Judgment

A PREM NATH KAPUR AND ANOTHER ETC.
v.
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS CORPORATION OF INDIA
LIMITED AND OTHERS

NOVEMBER 29, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND
SUJATHA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 23(2) , 28 and 23(1-A) as
C amended by Act 68 of 198~When does the liability of State to pay interest
ceases-Interest payable when appellate court further enhances compensa-
tion-Held claimant not entitled to appropriate towards costs and interests
from the principal amount of compensation when the amount is clearly
specified by the debtor either expressly or by implicatio1t-Section 60 of Con-
D tract Act applied.

Civil Procedure Code-Order 21Rule 1-Held inconsistent with Land
Acquisition Act and therefore is inapplicable thereto-Land Acquisition
Act-Ss. 28, 34 and 53.

E Notification was issued under Section 4 acquiring large track of land
including land belonging to the appellant on February S, 1973. Collector
made award on October 9, 1975, determining compensation@ Rs. 10,080
per acre. Civil Court, on January 2, 1979, on reference under Section 18,
confirmed the award of the Collector. In another reference by co-sharer,
F District Judge by order dated 24.1.1980 enhanced the compensation. On
revision by respondent Corporation, the High Court further enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 24,000 per acre while dismissing the appeal. The
Collector, on January 9, 1976 paid compensation including solatium and
interest. Compensation enhanced by the High Court was deposited on
January 14, 1984. The appellants claimed damages under Section 23(1)(3),
G in thP. High Court, by way of revision, for solatium granted and interest
on severance of the lands to the appellants. The High Court in anot~er
revision further enhanced solatium and interest under Section 23(2), 28
and 23(1-A). Appellants laid execution firstly, after appropriating the
amount received towards costs, then towards interest on the total compen-
H sation and solatium and then for compensation in respect of the lands.
790
P.N.KAPURv. N.F.C.LLTD. 791
;.
Executing Court granted the relief. High Court in appeal set aside the A
Order. Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act fastens liability on
the Collector to pay interest on the amount of compensation from the date B
of taking possession till date of payment to which reference under Section
18 would be made. Section 28 empowers the Court to award interest "in
excess of sum which the Collector did award as compensation" The Court
may direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess from the date he
took possession till the date of payment of such excess "into court". In case C
of further enhancement of compensation on appeal under Section 54 to the
extent of enhanced excess amount, the liability to pay interest subsists until
it is deposited into court. [797-B-C; 799-B]

2. The right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implica-
tion by the award itself as the award clearly mentions each of the items. D
When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the
claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation
towards costs, interest, additional amount under Section 23(1-A) with
interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest.
In general principles of law Section 60 of the Contract Act provides that E
where the debtor has omitted to intimate as to which debt the payment is
to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion. [799-D-E; 798-B]

Joginder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCR 682 and
Meghraj & Ors. v. Bayabaj & Ors., [1970) 1 SCR 523, distinguished.

3. The claimant is not entitled to interest on solatium by express F
provisions under Section 23(1). Compensation under Section 23(1), by
necessary implication excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium.
Equally no solatium is payable on additional amount payable under Sec-
tion 23(1-A). (800-A-B]
G
P. Ram Reddy v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, [1995) 2 SCC 305, referred
to.

4. By operation of Section 53 of the Act, Order 21 Rule 1 Civil
Procedure Code, being inconsistent with the express provisions contained
in Section 34 and Section 28 stands excluded. [800·D] H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals, [1995] 4 SCC 26, I
~.
over ruled.

5. The power tG award additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and
solatium under Section 23(2) are in addition to the market-value deter-
mined under Section 23(1). The power and jurisdiction to award amounts
B under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 would arise only when the Court or
High Court under Section 54 enhanced compensation. There was no error
in the Original order for amendment of it as when enhancement of com-
pensation was made in revision in 1984, the Amendment Act, 68 of 1984
could not apply. [800-G-H; 801-A:B]
c Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989] 3 SCR 316; KS. Paripooman
v. State of Kerala, [1995] 1 SCC 367; Union of India v. Smt. Pratap Kaur
(Dead) through Lrs. & Anr. Etc., JT (1995) 2 SC 583; State of Maharashtra
v. Maharan Srawan Hatkas, [1995] 3 SCC 316; State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.
v. Babu Singh & Ors., CA Nos. 3287-95/95 and State of Punjab & Ors. v.Jagi,r
D Singh Etc., CA Nos. 9911-12of1995, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11398 of
1995 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.87 of the Punjab &
E Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 3814 of 1986.

Pankaj Kalra and N.M. Popli for the Appellants.

Joseph Vellapally and AS. Pasrich for JBD & Co. for the Respon-
dents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
G (for short, "the Act") acquiring large track of land including the land
hefoJJging to the appellants, was published on February 5, 1973. On Oc-
tober 9, 1975, ~he Collector made. his award determining compensation @
Rs. 10,080 per acre. On reference under Section 18, the Civil Court, by
award and decree dated January 2, 1979, confirmed the award of the
B Collector. In another reference of the co-sharers, the District Judge by his
P.N. KAPUR v. N.F.C.I. LTD. [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 793

award and decree dated January 24, 1980 enhanced the compensation. On A
further revision, the High Court by order dated May 23, 1983 determined
the compensation @ Rs. 24,000 per acre while dismissing the appeal of the
respondent-Corporation. On January 9, 1975, after the award was made,
the Collector paid the compensation including solatium and interest deter-
mined thereon. After the High Court enhanced the compensation in B
revision, the same was deposited on January 14, 1984. It is not necessary
to dilate but suffice it to mention that the appellants by way of revision
claimed compensation for damages for severance of other lands from
acquired land as provided under clause thirdly of Section 23(1). In another
revision, the appellants claimed solatium and interest on demands for
severance of the lands which was also granted by the High Court. In yet C
another revision, the High Court enhanced solatium and interest and
additional amount under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23 (1-A) as amended by
Act 68 of 1984. The appellants laid execution, firstly, after appropriating
the amount received towards costs, then towards interest on the total
compensation and solatium and then for compensation in respect of the D
lands. Executing Court granted the relief, but the High Court in revisions
set aside the order dated March 11, 1987 in Civil Revision No. 3814of1986
and directed the Executing Court to dispose of the matter in the light of
the law laid down therein. Thus these appeals by special leave. Another
Bench of this Court issued notice suo motu on the amounts awarded
towards severance charges, interest and solatium thereon and additional E
benefits under the Amendment Act.

Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the present controversy having been concluded by a recent judgment of
this Court in Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals, JT 1995 4 F
SC 233, is no longer res integra. He further contended that the appellants
are entitled to appropriate the costs from the principal amount of compen-
sation, then towards interest on total amount of compensation from the
date of taking possession till date of payment as determined by the Collec-
tor as well as the High Court. The hierarchy of courts would determi~e the G
compensation after considerable delay and the owner or interested person
is entitled to be compensated for loss in value of their land. On determina-
tion thereof, the State as judgment-debtor is liable to restitute the owner
with just compensation by way of principal amount and interest accrued
thereon. The owner of the land as judgment-creditor is entitled to ap-
propiiate the principal amount deposited by the Collector, in the first H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 s.c.R.

A instance, towards costs, then towards interest on total amount and the
balance amount and interest accrued thereon is entitled to be recovered in
execution. Therefore, the High Court was not right in holding ·that the
appellants were entitled to the interest only from the respective dates of
the award of the Collector or the orders of the court. The direction not to
appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector first towards costs and
B then interest is clearly illegal. In support thereof, Shri Kalra placed strong
reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Meghraj & Ors. v. Bayabai & Ors.,
AIR (1970) SC 161.

The question, therefore, is when does the liability of the State to pay
C interest ceases? whether the owner of the land is entitled to appropriate
from the amount deposited towards costs and then towards interest and,
· then principal amount and again interest on total amount?
\
In this behalf, it is appropriate to notice relevant provisi~ns of the
D Act. Section 23(1), clause firstly, envisages that in determining the amount '1
of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court
shall take into consideration "the market-value of the land" at the date of
the publication of the notification under section4 (1). Sub-section (2) of
Section 23 provides that "in addition to the market-value" of the land, the -
Court shall "in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such
E market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition";
preceding September 24, 1984, at 15% on such market-value; Similarly,
under Section 23(1-A), as inserted by Act 68 of 1984, "in addition" to the
market-value of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per.annum "on such market- ~-
F value" for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of
Section 4 (1) notification to the date of the award of the Collector or the
date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Section 31
enjoins that the Collector on making the award under Section 11, shall
tender payment of the compensation to the persons interested entitled
thereto according to the award. He s\lall also pay the same to them, unless
G prevented by one or more contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2). In
that event, he "shall deposit the amount of compensation in the court to
which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted". Section 34 directs .'
that when the amount of compensation .is not paid or deposited on before
the taking possession of the land, the Collector "shall pay the amount
H awarded \yith interest thereon" at the rates preceding Amendment Act 68
P.N. KAPUR v. N.F.C.I. LTD. [K. RAMASWAMY,J.) 795

.w of 1984 at six per centum per annum or as per the rates prescribed by local A
Amendments made by the appropriate State Legislatures, from the date of
taking possession "until it shall have been so paid or deposited". After the
Amendment Act came into force on September 24, 1984, the rate of
interest was revised as 9 per centum per annum. The proviso to Section 34
further enjoins that if such compensation or any part thereof "is not paid
B
or deposited" within a period of one year from the date of taking posses-
sion, interest at the rate of 15 per centum per annum shall be payable from
the date of expiry of one year on the amount of compensation or part
thereof which has not been "paid or deposited" before the date of such
expiry.
c
In the event of the amount having been deposited into the court in
the contingencies specified in sub-section (2) of Section 31 or on reference
under Section 30, Section 33 gives power to the Court, on an application
by a party interested or claiming an interest in such money, to pa.ss an order
to invest the money so deposited in such Government or other approved
D
securities as it may think proper, and may direct the interest or other
proceedings of any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such
manner as it may consider proper so that the parties interested therein may
have the benefit therefrom as they might have had from the land in respect
whereof such money shall have been deposited or as near thereto as may
be. E

On reference under Section 18 and after enquiry made by the Court
~nder Sections 20 and 21, Section 26(2) declares that the award made shall
be deemed to be "decree" under Section 2 (2) of Civil Procedure Code (for
short, "CPC") and the statement of grounds as "judgment" under Section 2 F
(9) of the CPC. Section 28 enjoins that the award of the Court may direct
that the Collector "shall pay interest on such excess or part thereof"
(emphasis supplied), at the rates similar to those mentioned in Section 34
from "the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of
payment of such excess into Court". The duty to pay enhanced rate of
interest as provided in the proviso to Section 34 is similarly provided in the G
proviso to Section 28 as per section 18 of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984.
I. Section 53 of the Act makes CPC applicable to the proceedings before the
Court under the Act. It provides that "save in so far as they may be

-- inconsistent with anything contained in this Act" (emphasis supplied), the
provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under H
796 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995]SUPP.5S.C.R.

A the Act.

A reading of the above provisions would establish that the award
-
consists of (a) the compensation determined under Section 23(1), (b)
solatium on the market-value determined under Section 23 (2), as addition-
al sum for compulsory nature of acquisition, and ( c) payment of interest
B op the amount of compensation under Section 11, on excess or part thereof
under Section 26 awarded by court from the date of taking possession till
date of payment or deposit into the court at the rates specified under the
respective provisions of Section 34 and 28. Under Section 23(1- A),addi-
tional amount at 12 per centum per annum shall be paid or deposited from
C the date of notification under Section 4(1) till date of award or taking
possession of land, whichever is earlier. The additional amount under
Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are in addition to the
compensation under Section 11 and excess amount determined under
Section 23(1) read with Section 26 or Section 54. Equally, under Section ·
26 of the Act award is deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) of the
D CPC for the excess amount determined by the Court; this would be so
proprio vigore, when the appellate court under Section 54 has further
enhanced the compensation.

After notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the Gazette
and an enquiry under Section 5-A conducted, publication of the declara-
E tion under Section 6 in the Gazette gives conclusiveness to the public
purpose. The State is authorised to empower a specified officer to proceed
for taking steps under the Act to determine the compensation. On service
of notice under Section 9 read Section 10, enquiry under Section 11 would
be conducted and the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer makes an award
F thereunder. Section 12 enjoins him to serve notice, unless the party is
present either in person or through counsel at the time of making of the
award, to the claimant or the persons interested or known to be interested,
of his making of the award. Section 16 empowers him to take possession
of the land which shall thereupon "vest absolutely in the Government_ free
from all encumbrances" In case of urgency, sub-section (4) of Section 17
G empowers the appropriate Government to dispense with the enquiry under
Section 5-A and thereafter declaration under Section 6 would be published.
·~

-
Under sub-section (1) of Section 17, appropriate Government, in cases of
urgency, is empowered to direct the Collector, though no award under
Section 11 has been made, to take possession of the lands after service of
H notice under Section 9 and on the expiration of 15 days from the publica-
P.N. KAPUR v. N.F.C.I. L'ID. [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 797

- tion of such notice. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the A
Government free from all encumbrances.

It would thus be seen that Section 34 of the Act fastens liability on
the Collector to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined
under Section 23 (1) with interest under Section 34 from the date of taking
B
possession till date of payment or deposit into the court to which reference
under Section 18 would be made. After the enquiry under Section 20 read
with Section 21 on determination of excess amount of compensation,
Section 28 empowers the court, if in its opinion the Collector ought to have
awarded compensation as determined by him, to award interest "in excess
of sum which the Collector did award as compensation". The award of the c
court may direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess or part thereof
from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of
payment of such excess "into Court" at the rates specified thereunder. In
.other words, Sections 34 and 28 fasten then liability on the State to pay
interest on the amount of compensation or on excess compensation under D
Section 28 from the date of the award and decree but the liability to pay
interest on the excess amount of compensation determined by the Court
relates back to the date of taking possession of the land to the date of the
payment of such excess" into the court". Section 34 when contrasted with
Section 28, visualises payment of interest from the date of taking possession
when enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with and possession was. E
taken under sub-section (1) of Section 17 till date of payment or deposit
into the court while Section 28 enjoins the Collector to make payment of
interest at the specified rates "on such excess or any part thereof'' from the
date of taking possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess
amount or part thereof into the court. Section 53 specifically envisages that F
to the extent of any inconsistency in the provisions of the Act, the ap-
plicability of CPC to the proceedings under the Act stands excluded and
the provisions of the Act shall prevail. In other words, to the extent of the
specific provisions provided in the Act when found inconsistent with the
CPC, only the provisions in the CPC which are consistent with the
provisions of the Act,would stand attracted to the proceedings under the G
Act. By necessary exclusion, the inconsistent provisions of CPC stand
t- excluded.

1 fie basic question therefore, would be whether the claimant is
entitled to appropriate from the principal amount of compensation deter- H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A mined under Section 23(1) towards costs, and then towards interest pay-
able under either Section 34 or Section 28 or after Amendment Act came
into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984, additional amount under Section
-
23(1-A). Even in general principles of law, Section 60 of the Contract Act
provides that where the debtor has omitted to intimate and there are no
other circumstances indicatinglas to which debt the payment is to be
B applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion, to any lawful debt
actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is
or is not barred by the law in force for the time being, as to the limitation
of suits. It would, therefore, be clear that the debtor may indeed exercise
that right and may specify his appropriation expressly or his intention may
C be implied as shown by other circumstances, indicating that his intention
at the time of payment was to appropriate the amount deposited by him
to a specific debt or account towards the debt.

It is clear -from the scheme of the Act and the express language used
D in Sections 23(1) & (2), 34 and 28 and now Section 23 (1-A) of the Act
that each component is a distinct and separate one. When compensation
is determined under Section 23 (1), its quantification, though made at
different levels, the liability to pay interest thereon arises from the date on
which the quantification was so made but, as stated earlier, it relates back
to the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit of
E interest on such excess compensation into the court. Equally, when· the
appellate court under Section 54 further enhances the compensation, in-
terest is payable on such excess amount determined under Section 23(1).
In other words, the liability to pay interest arises as and when the compen-
sation is further enhanced and liability to pay interest would be co- ter-
F minus with the payment of the amount under Section 34 from the date of
taking possession till date of payment or deposit or under Section 28 or
Section 54 from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit of
such excess amount into the court. The liability to pay interest is only on
· the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) and
not on th~ amount already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer
G under Section 11 and paid to the party or deposited into the court or
determined under Section 26 or Section 54 and deposited into the court or
on solatium under Section 23(2) and additional amount under Sections
23(1-A)~

H Thus we hold that the liability to pay interest on the amount of
P.N. KAPUR v. N.F.C.I. LTD. [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 799

compensation determined under Section 23(1) continues to subsist until it A
is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into court under
Section 34 read with Section 31. Equally, the liability to pay interest on the
excess amount of compensation determined by the Civil Court under
Section 26 over and above the compensation determined by the Collec-
tor/Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 subsists until it is deposited B
into court. Proprio vigore in case of further enhancement of the compensa-
tion on appeal under Section 54 to the extent of the said enhanced excess
amount or part thereof, the liability subsists until it is deposited into court.
The liability to pay interest ceases on the date on which the deposit into
court is made with the amount of compensation so deposited. As held
earlier, the computation of the interest should be calculated from the date C
of taking possession till date of payment or deposit in terms of Section 34
or deposit into court in terms of Section 28, as the case may be.

Equally, the right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary
implication, by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions D
each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specified
amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of
compensation towards costs, interest, additional amouDt under Section
23(1-A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with
further interest. The ratio of Joginder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Anr., AIR (1985) SC 382 has no application to the facts of this case. Right E
to compensation and the quantification thereof are two distinct concepts.
The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State while its
quantification may be concluded at a later stage through several hierarchi-
cal stages referred to hereinbefore. The question therein was whether the
High Court while enhancing the compensation would direct payment of
interest on enhanced amount at 4 per cent per annum. This Court held F
that the distinction made by the High Court in payment of interest from
date of taking possession till date of its judgment was incorrect. Accord-
ingly, it directed payment of interest @ 6 per cent per annum on the
enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till
date of payment.
t- G
Equally, the contention that the claimant is entitled to interest on
solatium is also not warranted by express provisions under Section 23(2),
i.e., "in addition to" market-value, solatium was required to be paid. Section
34 or Section 23, as the case may be, fastens liability to pay interest only
on amount of compensation or such excess amount of compensation or part H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A thereof determined under Section 23(1). In other words, by virtue of the
language of Section 23 (2), viz., "in addition to the market-value", as
provided in Section 23(1), solatium becomes payable. Compensation under
Section 23 (1), by necessary implication, excludes the liability to pay
interest on solatium. Equally, the question of payment of solatium on
additional amount was also considered by this Court in P. Ram Reddy v.
B
State of Andltra Pradesh, [1995] 2 SCC 305 where it was held that no
solatium is payable on additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A).
So too, no interest is payable on additional amount under Section 23(1-A)
on other components except on compensation or excess compensation or
part thereof determined under Section 23 (1) over and above the award
C under Section 11 by Civil Court under Section 26 or on appeal under
Section 54, respectively.

The ratio in Megltraj case (supra) is equally inapplicable to the
appropriation of debt under the Act. It is seen that by operation of Section
D 53 of the Act, Order 21 Rule 1 being inconsistent with the express
provisions contained in Sections 34 and 28, stands excluded. The ratio
therein, therefore, is applicable only to a debtor and creditor in an ordinary
civil suit governed by the provisions of the CPC. Order 21 Rule 1 being
inconsistent with the express provisions contained in Section 34 and 28 of
the Act, it cannot stand extended to the cases covered by the Ad. It is
E unfortunate that these provisions were not brought to the attention of this
Court when it decided Mathunni Mathai case (supra), which make all the
difference. With due respect to our learned brethren who decided that
case, we are, therefore, constrained to observe that Mathunni Mathai case
cannot be taken to have laid down the correct law.
F
Counsel appearing for the respondents in fairness has conceded that
since the respondents did not file any appeal against the order passed by
the High Court allowing damages for severance of the land and solatium
and interest thereon, he is not in a position to assail the correctness thereof.
However, the revisional order for payment of additional benefits and
G enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 is ·+
clearly in excess of the power or jurisdiction of the High Court. The power
to award additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under
Section 23 (2) are in addition to the market-value determined under
Section 23(1). Equally, interest under Section 28 is on excess amount. In
H other words, the power and jurisdiction to award amounts under Sections
-I

- P.N. KAPUR v. N.F.C.I. LTD. [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 801

23(1-A), 23 (2) and 28 would arise only when the Court or High Court A
under Section 54 enhanced compensation. There was no error in the
original order for amendment of it under Section 151 or Section 152 of the
CPC, as, when enhancement of compensation was made in revision in 1984,
the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 could not apply as held by this Court in
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 and KS. Paripooman B
(JI) V. State of Kerala, [1995] 1 sec 367. This Court in Catena of decisions,
to name a few, Union of India v. Smt. Pratap Kaur (Dead) through Lrs. &
Anr. Etc., JT (1995) 2 SC 569, State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan
Hatkar, JT (1995) 2 SC 583, State of Punjab & Anr. Etc. v. Babu Singh &
Ors., C.A. Nos. 3287-95 of 1995 decided on February 28, 1995 and State of
Punjab & Anr. v. Jagir Singh Etc., C.A. Nos. 9911-12 of 1995 decided on C
October 30, 1995, has laid the above ratio and the same are applicable to
the facts of the case.

The appeals are dismissed accordingly. The executing Court shall
now proceed with the execution in accordance with law declared herein-
before. No costs. D
A.R. Appeal dismissed.