2019 INSC 0578
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