R.N. Misra, J.
1. The Collector of Cuttack is in appeal against the determination of compensation, upon a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by the learned Subordinate Judge. Jaipur.
2. 1.91 acres of agricultural land were notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition on 3-7-1962. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 1910/- for the land apart from solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act and damages of Rs. 188/-. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation and the dispute was referred to the Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has determined the compensation at Rs. 1750/-per acre. He has sustained the award of damage.
3. In appeal two contentions are raised. Firstly it is stated that the valuation determined by the court is excessive. It is next contended that no interest is payable under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act on the solatium.
4. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation per acre of agricultural land in this case at Rupees 1000/-. The learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced it to Rs. 1750/-. The reasoning given in paragraph 4 of the impugned order is inappropriate. What the learned Subordinate Judge had really in view was that the lands in the neighbourghood which had upon evidence been established to be of the same type were compensated at Rs. 2000/-. Therefore, the valuation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer appeared to be low. In his order there is no indication as to how he came to the figure of Rs. 1400/- but ultimately he has awarded compensation at Rs. 1750/- per acre. I cannot, on the materials on record, hold that it is excessive and warrants interference.
5. I also do not find any merit in the second contention. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 provides the six elements which are to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation. Sub-section (2) provides that in addition to the market value of the land as provided in Sub-section (1) the Court shall award 15 per centum of the market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Section 23 has been labelled with a broad heading 'Matters to be considered in determining compensation' and the section has been divided into two sub-sections. Statutorily six elements have been indicated in Sub-section (1) to be taken into consideration in determination of the market value and Sub-section (2) provides for statutory 15 per cent addition as compensation for the compulsory nature of the taking away of the property. In the circumstances, compensation must be the sum total of item No. 1, that is, Sub-section (1) and item No. 2, that is Sub-section (2). This view finds support from a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in (1898) ILR 22 Bom 802, (Nilkanth Ganesh Naik v. Collector of Thana).
Section 28 provides,
'If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.'
Interest is thus statutorily payable on the excess amount of compensation and accrual commences from the date of dispossession and is payable upto the date of the payment of the excess. In the circumstances the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge to pay interest even on the enhanced solatium cannot be found fault with. No authority contrary to the common sense view indicated above has been cited on behalf of the State. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel brought to my notice some discussion in the Commentary of the Law of Acquisition and Compensation by Ramachandran where a view akin to what I have indicated above has been taken. Thus there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.