Judgment :- 1. The short question that calls for decision in this case is whether, under the provisions of the Trivandrum City Improvement Trusts Act 1 of 1961, solatium is payable for compulsory acquisition of land. Though the claimant sought enhancement of land value in the reference court, there was no evidence in regard to such claim and the case there as well as here was confined at the hearings to the claim for solatium on the market value. 2. The acquisition was initiated by a notification under S.47 of the City Improvement Trusts Act and that was followed by a notification under S.53 (a) of the Act. Notices under S.9(1) and 9 (3) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act were then served on interested parties. 3. S.73 (a) of the City Improvement Trusts Act provides that for the purpose of acquiring lands the power under the Land Acquisition Act subject to modifications specified in the schedule shall be exercised. We are concerned with Clause.6 (2) of the schedule. That provides that sub-section (2) of S.22 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act shall be omitted and in its place a new sub-section shall be deemed to have been substituted. The new subsection is not relevant for our purpose. Though the reference is to the Land Acquisition Act of Travancore, that having been repealed and replaced by the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961, reference must be taken to the corresponding provision in that Act. That is S 25. The consequence of Clause.6 of the schedule is that S.25 (2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act stands omitted for acquisitions under the City improvement Trusts Act. It is this provision, which, in addition to the market value, provides for payment of 15% as solatium in determining compensation. A plain application of the provisions of the City Improvements Trusts Act therefore entails the inevitable consequence that acquisitions under that Act will not enable owners to claim solatium. The court below appears to have taken this view, though there is no discussion in the judgment. 4. Similar provisions modifying Land Acquisition Acts have come up for consideration before the courts. It has been urged with success that to provide for two different modes of acquisition, one less advantageous to the landowner than the other, leaving it to the authorities. 4. Similar provisions modifying Land Acquisition Acts have come up for consideration before the courts. It has been urged with success that to provide for two different modes of acquisition, one less advantageous to the landowner than the other, leaving it to the authorities. concerned to choose any one of the modes of acquisition would be discriminatory in that an arbitrary selection of the mode could be made. The land required for the schemes under the City Improvement Trusts Act could be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition, Act, in which event solatium will have to be paid in addition to the market value. But when the resort is made to the provisions of City Improvement Trusts Act, the payment of such solatium could be avoided. It is not as if the resort to one or the other of the modes depend on any intelligible differentiation. Consequently the provision in the City Improvement Trusts Act read along with the schedule denying the right to solatium to a land owner must necessarily be said to be discriminatory and void. Similar provisions have been struck down by court. Reference may be made in this context to the decision of the Supreme Court in Balammal v. State of Madras (AIR. 1968 SC. 1425). Madras City Improvement Trusts Act (37 of 1950) had a proviso similar to the Trivandrum City Improvement Trusts Act I of 1961 in that the former Act enabled acquisition without payment of solatium. The matter arose in connection with the claim in reference proceedings to the 15% solatium, though that was not provided in the statute. The Supreme Court took the view that being a clear case of discrimination infringing the guarantee of equal protection of the law the provision which is prejudicial to the owners of the land compulsorily acquired must be deemed invalid. Consequently the Supreme Court awarded 15% solatium also. This applies directly to the facts here though the statute with which we are concerned here is a different one. 5. The view that solatium must be paid as otherwise the consequence would be discrimination has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Mithal Rao (1973 (1) SCC. 500) and Om Prakash v. State of U. P. (AIR 1974 SC. 1202). 5. The view that solatium must be paid as otherwise the consequence would be discrimination has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Mithal Rao (1973 (1) SCC. 500) and Om Prakash v. State of U. P. (AIR 1974 SC. 1202). A Full Bench of this Court had occasion to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Balammal v. State of Madras (AIR. 1968 SC. 1425). In the circumstances we hold that solatium would be due to the appellant here. The appellants would also get costs of this appeal. Allowed.