JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Registry to register this reference as a separate proceeding. 2. We have heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 3. This matter is before us (Division Bench) on a reference made by the learned Single Judge taking a view different from the views expressed by concurrent Bench in previous writ petitions. 4. Question which has been referred to us for decision is as under:- "Whether a writ petition claiming interest and solatium under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which power vests with the Reference Court under Section 23 (1A) and 23(2) thereof, is maintainable in the absence of any reference being made to the Court in terms of section 18 of the Act and that too when the petitioner has already accepted the awarded compensation?" 5. Though it may not be necessary to refer to in details the factual narrative of the case, however, for placing the reference in the correct perspective, it would be apposite to extract the order dated 19.08.2015 of the learned Single Judge while making the reference as the said order has succinctly summed up the factual position. Relevant portion of the order dated 19.08.2015 reads as under:- "1. The petitioner by the name of Young Lal Association (YLA) is before this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay solatium and interest on the amount awarded and paid to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At the outset, it is also observed that the petitioner have placed reliance upon three orders of this Court i.e. WP (C) 109/2014, WP (C) 110/2014 and WP (C) 119/2014 to say in matters of similar nature, this Court had directed the respondents to take steps for payment of solatium as well as interest at the rate of 30% and 12% respectively to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of the orders. 2. Land was acquired by the Mizoram State Government represented by the Public Works Department, for construction of New 2-Lane Highway from NH-54 near Lawngtlai to Indo-Myanmar Border in Mizoram to support Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project in Phase 'A' of SARDP-NE. 2. Land was acquired by the Mizoram State Government represented by the Public Works Department, for construction of New 2-Lane Highway from NH-54 near Lawngtlai to Indo-Myanmar Border in Mizoram to support Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project in Phase 'A' of SARDP-NE. Pursuant to issue of Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 a Draft Award was prepared to the tune of Rs. 46,059,673/- which included amongst others, an Additional 12% interest on the principal amount. Pursuant thereto, apportionment of the amount was made in favour of the land owners as indicated in the Chart annexed to the writ petition at page 13. It appears from the Chart that the name of the petitioner organization figures at serial No. 33 and the compensation awarded stands at Rs. 54,00,000/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs only). The petitioner submits that the said amount has since been received from the concerned authority. 3. With regard to payment of solatium and interest, it is the case of the petitioner that representation had been made which, however, did not evoke any response. Constrained thus, the petitioner is before this Court for appropriate relief seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of solatium and interest. 4. The entitlement of the relief claimed has to be judged having regard to the statutory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Part III of the said Act and more particularly Section 18 thereof, envisages that any person interested who has not accepted the award may make an application to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred to the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether the objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation etc. "Court" is defined in Section 3 (d) to mean the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Part III of the said Act postulates that upon reference being made by the Collector to the Court, the procedure as envisaged from Section 20 onwards comes into play. Under Section 23 of the said Act the prescription is that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under this Act, the Reference Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land, the damage sustained by the person etc, as described under first to sixthly therein. Under Section 23 of the said Act the prescription is that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under this Act, the Reference Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land, the damage sustained by the person etc, as described under first to sixthly therein. Under sub-section 1 (A) of Section 23, the prescription is that in addition to the market value of the land, the Reference Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value for the period as described therein. In so far as payment in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition is concerned, sub-section (2) of Section 23 vests power on the Reference Court to award a sum of 30% on such market value of the land in question. 5. Having noticed the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no manner of dispute that power with regard to payment of solatium and interest vests only upon the Reference Court, that too pursuant to a reference made to it by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act. The condition precedent for making a reference by the Collector for the determination of the Court under Section 18 also prescribes that initiation of a reference comes about at the instance of the person interested who had not accepted the award and had made a written application to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred for determination of the Court. 6. In the instant case, the award of Rs. 54,00,000/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs only) by the petitioner was duly accepted by the petitioner. It is not a case where acceptance of the award had been refused. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any written application had been made to the Collector within the time prescribed or even otherwise requiring the matter to be referred for determination of the Court. 7. For the reasons stated above, it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioner is not entitled to solatium and interest as prayed for. 8. This Court appreciates that this order differs from the orders passed by a concurrent Bench in WP (C) 109/2014, WP (C) 110/2014 and WP (C) 119/2014. 7. For the reasons stated above, it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioner is not entitled to solatium and interest as prayed for. 8. This Court appreciates that this order differs from the orders passed by a concurrent Bench in WP (C) 109/2014, WP (C) 110/2014 and WP (C) 119/2014. Considering the importance of a decision with regard to the claim for solatium and interest in cases where the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have not been invoked, this Court is of the opinion that because of the divergent views that has emerged, the matter be referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench for a decision on the matter." 6. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 7. Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as LA Act, 1894) provides for enquiry and award by Collector. The award shall be made having regard to the true area of the land, compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons interested in the land. 8. Section 13-A of the LA Act, 1894 empowers the Collector to correct clerical errors etc. As per this provision, the Collector may at anytime but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under Section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority. As per the proviso, no correction which may affect any person pre-judicially shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter. 9. Section 15 of the LA Act, 1894 is quite relevant. It deals with matters to be considered and neglected while making an award. As per this Section, in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act, 1894. 10. Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 deals with reference to Court. It deals with matters to be considered and neglected while making an award. As per this Section, in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act, 1894. 10. Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 deals with reference to Court. As per this Section, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. Be it stated that Court has been defined under Section 3 (d) of the LA Act, 1894 to mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 11. Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894 deals with matters to be considered in determining compensation. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the said Act, the Court shall take into consideration various factors, such as, market value of the land, damage sustained by the person interested etc. As per sub-section (1-A) of Section 23, in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in respect of such land upto the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. As per sub-section (2) of Section 23, in addition to the market value of the land as above, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30% on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. 12. Section 24 of the LA Act, 1894 deals with matters which are to be ignored while determining compensation. 13. From a careful analysis of the aforesaid provisions, what is discernible is that the duty to award compensation to the persons interested in case of land acquisition vests on the Collector. The Collector shall assess the compensation having regard to various factors. 13. From a careful analysis of the aforesaid provisions, what is discernible is that the duty to award compensation to the persons interested in case of land acquisition vests on the Collector. The Collector shall assess the compensation having regard to various factors. If a person interested is not satisfied with the compensation awarded or with the measurement of the land acquired or with the apportionment of the compensation, he may file an application under Section 18 before the Collector for making a reference to the Court. In the course of the reference proceeding, the Court shall take into consideration various factors while determining the objection of the persons interested, such as, market value of the land, damage sustained by the persons interested etc. Under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23, in addition to the market value of the land, the Court is mandatorily required to award in every case an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) upto the date of the award or till possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In addition to that, under sub-section (2) of Section 23, it is mandatory for the Court to award in every case of land acquisition a sum equivalent to 30% of the market value of the land acquired, which would be in addition to the market value of the said land, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. 14. Thus, it is evident that the authority competent to award compensation for acquisition of land is the Collector. As already noticed above, under Section 15 of the LA Act, 1894, while determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Section 23 as discussed above as well as by the provision of Section 24 which deals with matters to be neglected or ignored in determining compensation. 15. This would mean that while determining compensation and making the award, it is the duty of the Collector to take into consideration the mandate of sub-sections (1-A) and (2) of Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894. The person interested is statutorily entitled to the benefits conferred by the aforesaid two sub-sections. Correspondingly, it is the statutory duty of the Collector to confer such benefit under the aforesaid two provisions to the persons interested. The person interested is statutorily entitled to the benefits conferred by the aforesaid two sub-sections. Correspondingly, it is the statutory duty of the Collector to confer such benefit under the aforesaid two provisions to the persons interested. Failure to do so would be a breach of the statutory duty vested on the Collector. 16. Question for consideration is whether in the event of such failure on the part of the Collector in the discharge of statutory duty as per mandate of Sections 23(1A) and 23 (2) of the LA Act, 1894 read with Section 15 of the said Act, what would be the remedy available to the affected persons interested. No doubt, he can avail the remedy of Section 18 of the LA Act and seek a reference. But having regard to the objective of the two provisions coupled with the compulsory nature of land acquisition, to our mind, it would be highly unfair, unjust and untenable to restrict the aggrieved persons interested only to a remedy under Section 18. Such an aggrieved person may approach the Collector concerned under Section 13 (A) of the LA Act, 1894 where under the Collector can correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes etc in making the award either on his own motion or on an application of any person interested or a local authority. We say this because awarding of interest under Section 23 (1A) and awarding of solatium under Section 23 (2) is statutorily mandated. It is automatic; once market value is determined, interest and solatium thereon has to be granted. There is no question of any long drawn argument or debate over the entitlement or on the quantum of interest and solatium because these are statutorily provided. Once the market value of land is determined by the Collector, he has to apply the formula provided under the aforesaid two provisions to arrive at the quantum of interest and solatium. If there is omission on the part of the Collector to grant interest and solatium while making the award, it would be a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, such an error or mistake would come within the ambit of Section 13 (A) of the LA Act, 1894, which can be corrected by the Collector himself. 17. Therefore, such an error or mistake would come within the ambit of Section 13 (A) of the LA Act, 1894, which can be corrected by the Collector himself. 17. In the case of Narain Das Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra reported in (1991) 4 SCC 212 , Supreme Court while referring to Section 23 (2) of the LA Act, 1894 had defined the expression "solatium" to mean "money comfort", quantified by the statute, and given as a conciliatory measure for the compulsory acquisition of the land of the citizen, by a welfare State such as ours. The importance of the award of solatium cannot be undermined by any procedural blockades. It follows automatically the market value of the land acquired, as a shadow would to a man. It springs up spontaneously as a part of the statutory growth on the determination and emergence of market value of the land acquired. It follows as a matter of course without any impediment and is to be awarded "in every case" leaving no room for any discretion. 18. Similar would be the position in respect of interest awarded under Section 23 (1A) of the LA Act, 1894. 19. Now coming to the next question as to whether such a claim can also be maintained in a writ petition, as already discussed above, claim of interest and solatium is a statutory right of the person interested and non-payment of such interest and solatium would be a failure on the part of the Collector to discharge statutory duty vested on him. If there is such failure on the part of the public authority in the discharge of statutory duty, certainly a writ Court would be well within its jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the public authority to discharge his statutory duty. The fact that alternative remedy is available under Sections 13(A) and 18 of the LA Act, 1894 would not debar the writ Court from exercising such jurisdiction in an appropriate case. 20. In the light of the above discussions, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative by holding that a writ petition claiming interest and solatium under Sections 23 (1A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 even in the absence of any reference under Section 18 of the said Act would be maintainable. 21. 20. In the light of the above discussions, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative by holding that a writ petition claiming interest and solatium under Sections 23 (1A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 even in the absence of any reference under Section 18 of the said Act would be maintainable. 21. Having answered the reference in the above manner, we send down the record of WP(C) No. 119/2015 to the Single Bench for its decision on merit. 22. Reference proceeding is accordingly disposed of.