Special acquisition statute excludes solatium and interest where its compensation code omits those additions expressly.

Under the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, compensation for requisitioned property acquired for public purpose was held to be governed by the statute's own code in Sections 7 and 8. Because the Act did not expressly provide for solatium or interest, and deliberately omitted provisions comparable to Sections 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, such additions could not be granted on equitable grounds. The Court also treated the earlier precedent under the corresponding Central Act as binding and rejected the challenge based on Article 14 and alleged unjust enrichment. The compensation was upheld, but solatium and interest were disallowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, the owners of requisitioned property acquired for public purpose are entitled to solatium and interest on the compensation awarded.

Analysis: The Act contained its own scheme for acquisition and determination of compensation. Section 7 enabled acquisition of requisitioned property, while Section 8 prescribed the manner and principles for determining compensation. Unlike the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Act did not expressly provide for solatium or interest. The Court held that equity yields to statute where the statute occupies the field, and the deliberate omission of provisions analogous to Sections 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 showed a legislative intention not to include solatium and interest as components of compensation. The Court further held that the earlier precedent denying such claims under the corresponding Central Act was binding and that the challenge based on Article 14 and alleged unjust enrichment had no merit.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to solatium or interest under the Act, and the award granting those amounts was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The compensation determined under the Act was upheld, but the additions towards solatium and interest were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special acquisition statute deliberately omits provision for solatium and interest while prescribing its own compensation code, such amounts cannot be awarded on equitable principles.

---