Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 14078 of 2019

RB Dealers Private Limited .. Petitioner

Versus

The Metro Railway, Kolkata .. Respondent

WITH  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 14170 of 2019

Kishan M. Agarwal .. Petitioner

Versus

The Metro Railway, Kolkata .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

1. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court in

the present Special Leave Petitions is as to whether the solatium as

contemplated under sub­section (1) of Section 30 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency  in Land Acquisition,  Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’) has to be

calculated only on the market value and assets or  the sum total  of the

market  value, the assets and additional  12% per annum on the market

value stipulated under sub­section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act?

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. NGA­32 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 allowed.

2.1 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 of Rs.6,75,526/­ within two months from the date of the

order on account of value of structure.   

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.    

2.4 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 sub­section (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 under

sub­section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the original owner­the

petitioner herein has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.

2.5 Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this

Court is as to whether 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 or on the total arrived at upon adding the

additional 12% per annum  on the market value?  

3. Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the petitioner ­original land owner­original claimant has vehemently

submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in holding 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 adding further sum of

12% per annum on market value.    

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court holding that the solatium has to be calculated only on the

market value arrived at and the assets thereon and not on the total arrived

at adding the further sum of 12% per annum on market value, is against

the scheme of the 2013 Act  for awarding the compensation for the  land

acquired.

3.2 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner that the amount of solatium stipulated under sub­

section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, which is to the amount equivalent

to  100% of the  compensation amount,  shall include additional  12% per

annum on the market value stipulated under sub­section (3) of Section 30

of the 2013 Act.    

3.3 It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner that, as per the scheme of the 2013 Act, Section 26 of the Act

refers to the manner in which the market value as defined in Section 3(u)

has to be determined by the Collector.   Section 27 of the Act refers to the

determination of the amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner

by including all assets attached to the land.   It is submitted that Section 28

provides the parameters to be considered by the Collector for determining

the amount of the compensation to be awarded for the land acquired.   It is

submitted that the expression “compensation” has to be defined in the Act

and  would therefore take into its fold  any  amount statutorily  due and

payable to a person whose land stands acquired under the Act.    

3.4 It is submitted by Shri Ahmadi appearing on behalf of the petitioner

that sub­section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act provides, inter alia, that

the solatium amount is equivalent to 100% of the compensation amount.  It

is submitted that sub­section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act expressly

provides that the Collector shall award in addition to the market value of

the land under Section 26, an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per

annum on such market value.  It is submitted that said amount at the rate

of 12% is yet another kind of compensation which is payable to the land

owner in lieu of the compulsory acquisition. It is submitted that, therefore,

while  construing/considering the “total  compensation”  under sub­section

(1) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the sum payable at the rate of 12% per

annum under sub­section (3) of Section 30 of the 2013 Act is required to be

included.   It is submitted that the sum payable under sub­section (3) of

Section 30 of the 2013 Act shall be a part of the award while determining

and paying and compensation for the land acquired.    It is submitted that

as 2013 Act is a beneficiary Act, a liberal interpretation should be adopted

in favour of the land owners whose land has been compulsory acquired.    

3.5 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the petitioner that even sub­section (3) of Section 69 of the Act

also provides that solatium shall  be 100% over the “total  compensation”

amount.   It is submitted that, therefore, a beneficial construction of sub­

section (3) of Section 69 would illustrate the legislative intent which is that

solatium under  sub­section  (1)  of  Section 30 would  be  the  aggregate  of

100% of the market value determined under Section 26, the asset value

determined  under Section  27 of the  Act and  12% of the  market value

determined  under sub­section (3) of Section  30  of the 2013  Act.    He

submitted that any interpretation contrary to the above, would be contrary

to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2013 Act.

3.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

Special Leave Petitions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner at length.  As observed hereinabove, the short question posed for

consideration of this Court in the present Special Leave Petitions is as to

whether the solatium as contemplated under sub­section (1) of Section 30

of the 2013 Act, has to be calculated only on the market value and the

assets thereon or the sum total of the market value, the assets and 12% per

annum on the market value stipulated under sub­section (3) of Section 30

of the 2013 Act?   While considering the aforesaid question, the relevant

provisions of the 2013 Act and the scheme for determination of the amount

of compensation for the land acquired are required to be referred to and

considered.  The relevant provisions of the 2013 Act are Sections 26, 27, 28,

29 and 30.  Section 26 of the Act provides for determination of market value

of the land by the Collector.   Section 27 of the Act provides for

determination of the amount of  compensation and Section 28 of the Act

provides the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determination

of the award.  Section 29 of the Act provides for determination of the value

of things attached to the land or building.   Section 30 of the Act provides

that  the Collector having determined  the total  compensation to  be paid,

shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a “Solatium” amount equivalent to

one  hundred  per  cent  of the  compensation amount.  Sub­section  (3) of

Section 30 further provides that in addition to the market value of the land

provided under Section 26,  the Collector shall, in every case, award the

amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for

the  period  commencing  on  and from  the  date  of the  publication  of the

notification under sub­section (2) of Section 4, in respect of such land, till

the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the

land, whichever is earlier.   Therefore, on conjoint reading of the aforesaid

provisions and the scheme of the Act, it is to be seen that before the final

award 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 sub­section (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 sub­section (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 sub­section (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 equivalent

to 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 sub­section (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 sub­section (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

Act.   

4.1 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 sub­section (1) of Section 30 of the 2013  Act and

solatium at the rate of one hundred per cent over the total compensation

amount determined and payable under sub­section (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 sub­section (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

Act.

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.   

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. B. Phookan, Adv.  Ms. Neha Tandon, Adv.  

                   Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR                     For Respondent(s)                        

Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  M.  R.  Shah  pronounced  the  reportable

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.    

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                            (JAGDISH CHANDER)   COURT MASTER                          BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)