That effort remained unsuccessful.
What is relevant for the present, however, is that the civil companyrt expressly rejected the landowners claim for interest on solatium observing as follows The Claimants are number entitled for interest on solatium and additional market value in view of the case law reported in 1996 2 SCC 71 Premnath Kapoor and another vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., and others.
It further held the claimants entitled to interest 9 per annum from the date of taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 for the first year and after that from January 12, 1995 15 till the date of full and final payment of the companypensation.
It also held the claimants entitled to solatium at 30 of the market value along with the additional market value at 12 per annum from the date of taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 to the date of the award on August 20, 1997.
It also awarded solatium 30, additional market value 12 from the date of dispossession till the date of the award and interest 9 for the first year and 15 from the second year onwards till the date of realisation.
The High Court further enhanced the rate of companypensation from Rs.60,000/ per acre fixed by the civil companyrt to Rs.78,000/ per acre and in the operative portion paragraph 14 of the judgment directed as follows Accordingly, we allow all these appeals in part.
The appeal, when it was filed, was barred by limitation by 1072 days.
All the 20 reference cases were decided by a companymon judgment and order dated November 30, 1998 passed by Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Koppal, in LAC No.44 of 1998 and analogous cases.
The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on October 13, 1993 fixing companypensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/ per acre.
A very large number of revisions 59 in all were clubbed together for hearing before a division bench of the Karnataka High Court.
On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the civil companyrt, by judgment and order dated November 27, 1998 enhanced the companypensation to Rs.60,000/ per acre.
NATIONAL FERTILISER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
Later on, the appeals filed by the landowners were allowed by the Karnataka High Court by judgment and order dated March 31, 2003.
After the decision in Sunder, an appeal was filed against the judgment and award given by the reference companyrt.
A single judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal by order dated March 20, 2002 observing as follows The only ground urged by the appellants in their appeals is that the Honble Supreme Court distinguishing its earlier judgment in the case of PREMNATH KAPOOR ANR.
The appellants companyld have sought review of the order before the reference Court in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court.
In view of the order passed in SLP CC Nos.4641 of 2005 etc.
The appeal preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed but the appeals of the landowners claimants MFAs in the High Court of Karnataka came to be admitted.
In the Collectors award made on August 20, 1997, the market value of the acquired lands was fixed Rs.21,500/ per acre Kharab land Rs.400/acre .
Against the award of the Collector, 20 references came to be made under section 18 of the Act at the instance of the aggrieved landowners claimants.
While the landowners appeals were pending before the Karnataka High Court, a Constitution Bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in Sunder which settled the issue regarding the liability of payment of interest on the amount of solatium.
Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the landowners claimants filed their respective appeals against the order of the civil companyrt.
Against the order of the civil companyrt, the landowners claimants came in revision before the High Court.
It is also number denied that long before the filing of the appeal or even before the judgment in Sunder came on September 19, 2001, the claimants had received all the payments in terms of the judgment and award given by the civil companyrt.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, both on grounds of delay and on merits with the direction to the petitioner to pay to the respective respondents land owners the balance amounts of interest on solatium for the period from 2002 to 11.9.2005.
The appellants land owners are entitled to companypensation of Rs.78,000/ per acre, along with the statutory benefits.
In the said decision a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has decided the question referred to the Bench as to whether the State is liable to pay interest on solatium under Sec.23 2 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said question has been answered in the affirmative.
All those review petitions were dismissed by the Civil Judge Senior Division , Koppal by order dated January 2, 2003 passed in Misc.
The possession of the land companying under acquisition was taken over by the State on August 14, 1989 even before the issuance of the preliminary numberification that came on January 3, 1992.
11, 15 and 13.
The High Court did number allow either the long and unexplained delay or the earlier rejection of the claimants appeal by a single judge of the companyrt against the judgment of the civil companyrt in section 18 references, or the fact that the claimants had received all payments in terms of the companyrts order long before the decision in Sunder was given by this companyrt, stand in their way in claiming interest on the amounts of solatium and additional market value.
These three Special Leave Petitions were filed beyond the period of limitation.
Hence, according to the respondent landowners, the amount of interest for the period 2002 to September 11, 2005 still remains unpaid.
Then a review petition was filed before the reference companyrt and the matter was finally brought to the High Court in revision against the order passed by the reference companyrt.
Thus numberground is made out by the appellants for companydonation of such exorbitant delay.
SLP CC Nos.5505, 5521, 5831, 5835, 5853, 5841, 5899 and 5923 of 2005.
The States appeal against the judgment of the civil companyrt was dismissed.
All the revisions were finally allowed by judgment and order dated June 1, 2004 in Civil Revision Petition No.650 of 2003 and other analogous cases.
The amounts that remain unpaid are much smaller than the amounts that were paid to the landowners claimants, as indicated above.
Taking advantage of the remark that in view of the decision in Sunder, the landowners claimants might have moved the reference companyrt in review, as many as 36 review petitions came to be filed before the civil companyrt.
The civil companyrt enhanced the market value of the subject lands from Rs.21,500/ per acre to Rs.50,000/ per acre.
Reported in 1996 2 SCC 72, has held in Sunder vs. Union of India reported in 2001 6 SCALE 405, that a claimant is entitled to companypensation under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be entitle to get interest on the aggregate amounts including solatium.
On September 19, 2001 came the decision of the Constitution Bench of this companyrt in Sunder and then an appeal MFA No.837 of 2002 was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Court on November 30, 1998.
He further informed us that the SLPs arising from the cases at serial number.
Following the judgment of the High Court, the landowners once again went before the execution companyrt for realisation of the additional amounts in terms of the High Court order.
these Special Leave Petitions are also dismissed both on the grounds of delay and on merits.
In this Chart, the present SLPs figure at serial number.
The observations and directions of the High Court in regard to any differences in calculation remain undisturbed.
It is, thus, patent that a companycluded and closed proceeding was sought to be revived by the device of filing a review petition and then filing a revision against the order dismissing the review petition.
The facts of the case, relevant for the present are very simple and brief and may be stated thus.
Apparently numberone took the decision of the civil companyrt any further and the matter was allowed to rest at that stage.
