Alok Sharma, J.

1. A challenge in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter the Act of 1894) has been made to the award/deemed decree dated 19.02.1999, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.D.)/Reference Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur to the extent of exclusion of interest on the enhanced amount of solatium as determined by the reference court itself.

2. The facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1887 came to be issued on 21.08.1969 inter alia for acquisition of 38 bigha 11 biswa land (25 acres land) in the khatedari of the appellant. A notification under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act followed on 28.02.1973 declaring that the said land was required for public purpose. Award in respect of the said land came to be passed on 17.04.1979. Thereunder a sum of L 1,73,500/- was found payable to the appellant as compensation. The possession of the said land was taken on 31.05.1979. The appellant received the award amount of L 1,73,500/- on 12.06.1979 under protest and proceeded to file a reference application under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. During the pendency of the reference the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1987 was repealed effective 24.09.1984 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made applicable to the State of Rajasthan. Thereupon the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 became applicable for the determination of the pending reference filed by the appellant. In the circumstances, on 13.09.1990 the appellant filed an application seeking amendment of its reference and praying that in determining the compensation payable to the appellant the provision of the Act of 1894 be applied. The said amendment was allowed by the reference court vide order dated 05.04.1991.

4. For consideration before the reference court inter alia was the question as to whether the appellant had been granted adequate compensation in accordance with law for the acquisition of its land. The reference court on consideration of the evidence laid before it with regard to the market value of the land determined by the LAO came to the conclusion that the most reasonable ascertainment of the value of the land was L 80/- per sq. meter. It was however held that, albeit the appellant was entitled to solatium @ 30% p.a. on the enhanced market value determined by the reference court as against the market value determined by the LAO, the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 only on the enhanced market value and not on the solatium.

5. Mr. R.S. Mehta, appearing for the appellant, submits that the view of the learned reference court on the disentitlement of the appellant to interest over the enhanced solatium amount and confining the interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act of 1894 only to the enhanced market value as determined by the reference court is contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench (Five Judges) of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India [AIR 2001 SC 3516 [LQ/SC/2001/2124] ]. Counsel has submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that the person, whose land is acquired and compensation in respect whereof is determined under the Act of 1894 even by the reference court, would be entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on the aggregate amount of enhanced compensation inclusive of solatium and that the interest could not be confined only to the enhanced market value as determined by the reference court. Reference has been made to para 23 & 24 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under :

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 compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof.

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 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 to the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would 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. 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 under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted.

6. Counsel has submitted that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Sunder (Surpa) has also been followed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] [LQ/SC/2006/955] . It has been therefore prayed that accordingly the impugned judgment dated 19.02.1999 passed by the reference court be modified and it be directed that the appellant was entitled under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 to interest on the enhanced compensation as determined by the reference court which included both the market value as also the solatium thereon.

7. Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Mathur, appearing for the respondents, has supported the impugned judgment dated 19.02.1999, passed by the reference court.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. The only issue for consideration before this Court is as to whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the enhanced solatium granted by the reference court pro rata to the enhanced market value determined by it where under it was held that the compensation to the appellant was under assessed by the LAO while passing the award dated 17.04.1979 and the appellant was entitled to be compensated @ L 80/- per sq. meter for its land acquired as also @ 30% p.a. solatium thereon. In my considered view, the question which has been raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (Supra) and has thus of necessity be decided in favour of the appellant.

10. It is accordingly held that the appellant would be entitled to interest also on the enhanced solatium determined by the reference court in its judgment dated 19.02.1999. It is made clear that the entitlement of the appellant for interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 would be limited to the enhanced amount of compensation including the solatium and nothing more.

11. No other argument has been raised before this Court.

12. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Appeal Allowed.