Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. An area of 83,474 sq ft of land situated on the outskirts of the town of Erode was acquired by the notification dated 14-3-1973 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) for the construction of LIG and MIG houses. Possession of the land was taken over in December 1980. The Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs 1.35 per sq ft vide the award dated 30-12-1980. Not satisfied with the amount offered, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and on such reference, the Land Tribunal, Erode, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs 3.20 per sq ft vide the judgment dated 27-4-1984. The appellants carried the matter in appeal to the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Before the High Court as noted in the judgment, Rs 7.00 per sq ft was claimed. The High Court on assessing the material on record further enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs 5.00 per sq ft. Hence, this appeal by the claimants.
3. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri S. Balakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that from the material on record it is clear that the rate of compensation fixed by the High Court is on the lower side; the appellants are entitled to a higher rate of compensation, at least Rs 7.00 per sq ft. He drew our attention to a judgment rendered by the High Court shortly before the decision in the present case, in which land acquired by a notification issued on the same day for a similar purpose was assessed at Rs 8.50 per sq ft.
4. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. We find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the judgment, the Court has assessed the compensation at Rs 5.00 per sq ft. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonably low and warrants interference by this Court. It is not possible to determine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guesswork. We do not find that the judgment under challenge suffers from any serious illegality. The approach of the High Court is fair and reasonable. No interference with the decision rendered by the High Court is called for.
5. Then, Shri Balakrishnan raised the question that the appellants are entitled to interest on the solatium amount which has not been granted by the Reference Court and also by the High Court. He drew our attention to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kapur Chand Jain v. State Govt. of H.P (1999) 2 SCC 89 wherein the question of award of interest on solatium has been referred for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the different views expressed by different Benches of this Court, as noted in the order. Shri Balakrishnan also submitted that if it is held that interest is to be paid on solatium also then this Court should grant leave to the appellant claimants to make a claim for the interest on the solatium amount. The submission is reasonable. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge, we make it clear that if it is held that the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium under law, it will be open to the appellants in this case to raise a claim in that regard before the Land Acquisition Collector.
6. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.
7. No costs.