ORDER
Avinash Somakant Bhate, J.
1. This Revision is filed challenging the order in E.P.No. 187 of 1993 in O.P.No. 114 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram.
2. The point for consideration before the Court below was whether the decree-holder respondent herein was entitled for claiming interest on the amount of solatium and also on the amount of 12% interest which is payable under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned Judge held that the decree-holder was entitled for the said interest both on solatium as well as on 12% interest payable under the above said provision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act and the interest payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act do not form part of compensation for the property acquired and interest is payable under Section 28 of the Act only on the amount of compensation and it is therefore, contended that the order suffers from illegality and has to be set aside. For supporting his argument that these components do not form part of compensation the learned counsel heavily relied on State of Maharastra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, (D.N.). In that case what had happened was that answer was passed by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on 25-10-1983 enhancing the amount of compensation. The award became final as no appeal was preferred. Thereafter came the amendment to the Act which was brought into force from 29-9-1989. By this amendment, Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) were inserted. After this amendment came into force, the claimants made a separate application to the Civil Court for awarding solatium and additional compensation under the amended Act. The Civil Court granted the said application and this was the subject matter of the whole litigation.
4. It is necessary to state that the Apex Court ultimately held that the Civil Court inherently lacked jurisdiction and it was devoid of power to entertain the application to award any additional benefits under the amended Act and on this reasoning the order was ultimately set aside. While discussing various aspects in para-6 of the judgment, the supreme Court observed:
“It would thus be seen that the additional amounts envisaged under Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 23 are not part of the component of the compensation awarded under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. They are only in addition to the market value of the land. The payment of interest also is only consequential to the enhancement of the compensation. In a case where the Court has not enhanced the compensation on reference, the Court is devoid of power to award any interest for one year from the date of taking possession at 9 per cent and 15 per cent thereafter till the date of payment into the Court as envisaged under the proviso.”
5. The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that these observations show that the word “compensation” used in Section 23 of the Act does not take into its sweep the amounts granted under the head of solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the respondents learned counsel, a careful reading of the above observation will show that the Supreme Court was only stating that Sub-section (1-A) and (2) of Section 23 of the Act are not part of Section 23(1) of the said Act. There is nothing in the said decision to support the contention which is sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, there are several decisions of this Court which show that a consistent view has been taken in tune with the observation made in Union of India v. Rammahra, AIR 1973 SC 308. that claimants are entitled to interest on solatium as well as on 12% additional market value granted under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The last decision placed before me is in Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad v. B. Ananth, , delivered by learned Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju. This decision has also been referred to and obviously approved by a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos. 2168/87 and 2192/87 on 31-3-95. The order appears to have been passed by the Division Bench in a matter coming before it for being mentioned. The order reads as follows:
“The claimants are entitled to the interest on additional market valued as per the decision in Sp. Deputy Collector v. B. Ananth (1993(1) A.P.L.J.-209). Therefore, interest shall be awarded to the claimants on the additional market value according to law.”
The order shows that the interests obviously payable on the components of solatium as well as additional compensation of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It will therefore appear that the matter is fully covered by the judgments of this Court and there is no scope for any further ingenuity in the matter.
6. Under the circumstances, the Revision is totally devoid of substance and it has to be dismissed. In the result, the Revision is dismissed. No costs.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be granted time to deposit the amount which has become due. Hence, four weeks time is granted from to-day for depositing the amount due.