Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030005912023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/41/2023 The Union of India and 2 Ors. Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg New Delhi - 110001 2: The General Manager 3: The Deputy Chief Enginee VERSUS Sh. Lalruata Ralte and 4 Ors. S/o Manheia (L) R/o ITI Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:Smt. Lalramhlupuii 3:The State of Mizoram 4:The Director 5:The District Collecto Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R3 - R5 Page No.# 2/5 ORDER B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC for the appellants. Also heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned Govt. Advocate for the remaining respondents. By filing this appeal, the appellants have challenged the Judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib District, Mizoram in Damage Suit No. 1/2018. [2.] Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned Judgment on the strength of the order passed by the predecessor court of Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib in Damage Suit No. 3/2017 whereby, as many as nine (9) persons who had filed the damage suit were directed to be paid the damage compensation as assessed by the Collector since there lands were damaged due to the construction of railway line by the N.F. Railway. Since the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the instant appeal were also among the listed persons numbering 11 for whom the assessment for payment was made, the learned Trial Court directed that the amount so assessed towards damages should be paid to them through the impugned Judgment dated 08.04.2022. The learned CGC submits that in so far as the payment of damages Page No.# 3/5 is concerned, the appellants have no grievance but it is the direction given by the Trial Court towards payment of solatium and interest that the appellants are aggrieved with. Referring to Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A Act), the learned CGC submits that the solatium and interest would only be payable for acquisition of land upon determination of the market value @ 12% per annum of the said market value. In the instant case, since the land of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not acquired, there is no question of payment of solatium and interest to them. [3.] Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on the other hand submits that the amount of damages assessed by the Collector has duly been paid to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 but however, in addition, they would be also entitled to solatium and interest as directed by the learned Trial Court. He submits that since the land of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has been affected by the construction made by the appellants, the market value for which the damages have been caused will have to be calculated so as to arrive at an amount of solatium and interest payable to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. [4.] Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the matter being handled by Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General and therefore the brief is not with him. Page No.# 4/5 [5.] There is no dispute to the fact that the amount of damages assessed by the District Collector has been paid to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and what remains is with regard to payment of solatium and interest. Section 23(1A) and (2) of the L.A Act provides as follows:- “[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub- section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.” [6.] From the above abstract, it may be seen that in order to be entitled to be paid solatium and interest, there is a requirement of determining the market value of the land. A perusal of the Assessment Report annexed to the appeal at page No. 27 does not reveal that any area of land belonging to the names of Page No.# 5/5 persons in the list including the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have been acquired and assessed. There is neither an assessment for the value of the land in question including the building standing thereon except for the value of crops. It is not even the case of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that aggrieved with the non- assessment of the land to be acquired they had taken recourse to some process as permissible in law. Therefore, the assessment so made only appears to be final. The above abstract would also goes to show that unless there has been acquisition of land by determination of market value for payment of compensation, there would be no question of granting such solatium and interest. Therefore, the observation and direction made by the learned Trial Court in the impugned Judgment in so far as it relates to payment of solatium and interest is only misconceived and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. In other words, the impugned Judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed in Damage Suit No. 1/2018 in so far as payment of solatium and interest is concerned stands interfered with. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. [7.] The Registry shall send back the original LCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant