BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.No.650 of 1997 and A.S.No.454 of 2001 and 94 of 2006 A.S.No.650 of 1997 The Special Tahsildar (L.A), Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, Sivakasi. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs 1.Thangaraj ... 1st Respondent/Claimant
2.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Special Division,
Ellis Nagar, Madurai. … 2nd Respondent/Beneficiary
Prayer in A.S.No.650 of 1997
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as against the
judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.95 of 1989 dated 26.06.1996, by the
learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.
!For Appellant … Mr.So.Paramasivam,
Additional Govt. Pleader
^For Respondents … Mr.V.Radhakrishnan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Kadarkarai for R.1
A.S.No.454 of 2001
#The Special Tahsildar (L.A),
Neighbourhood Housing Scheme,
Sivakasi. … Appellant/Referring Officer
Vs
$1.Rajapushpam
2.Karnan
3.Ragupathi
4.Ganeshkumar
5.Vasudevi
6.Karunai Pazham … Respondents 1 to 6/
Claimants
7.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Special Division,
Madurai. … 7th Respondent/
Beneficiary
Prayer in A.S.No.454 of 2001
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as against the judgment
and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 1988 dated 26.06.1996, by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.
!For Appellant … Mr.So.Paramasivam,
Additional Govt. Pleader
^For Respondents … Mr.V.Radhakrishnan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Kadarkarai
for R.1 to R.6
A.S.No.94 of 2006
#The Special Tahsildar (L.A),
Neighbourhood Housing Scheme,
Sivakasi. … Appellant/Referring Officer
Vs
$1.Gandhi Mathi
2.Rajapushpam
3.A.Kannan
4.A.Ragupathi
5.A.Ganeshkumar
6.J.Vasudevi
7.KarunaiPalam … Respondents 1 to 7/
Claimants
8.The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Special Division,
Madurai. … 8th Respondent/
Beneficiary
Prayer in A.S.No.454 of 2001
Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as against the
judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.69 of 1988 dated 26.06.1996, by the
learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.
!For Appellant … Mr.So.Paramasivam,
Additional Govt. Pleader
^For Respondents … Mr.V.Radhakrishnan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Kadarkarai
for R.1 to R.7
:COMMON JUDGMENT
The Government filed the appeals in A.S.Nos.650 of 1997, 454 of 2001 and
94 2006 to get set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.95 of
1989, 68 of 1988 and 69 of 1988, dated 26.06.1996, by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Srivilliputtur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of these appeals would run thus:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated
25.09.1985, was made relating to acquiring of the lands involved in the
following cases:
Sl.No.
A.S.Nos.
Award No.& Dated
Land Value Fixed by the Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur
(Per Cent)
1.
650 of 1997
2/88-
19.10.1988
Rs.1,300/-
2.
454 of 1997
1/88-
19.01.1988
Rs.1,300/-
3.
94 of 2006
1/88
19.11.1988
Rs.1,300/-
for acquiring a vast tract of land under the “Neighbourhood Development Scheme”,
Sivakasi. Consequently, necessary steps were taken as per law for acquiring the
lands and ultimately, the relevant awards emerged.
4. The land acquisition officer assessed the compensation in a sum of
Rs.11,115/- per Hectare.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such passing of awards,
quantifying the compensation, various references under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, have been made to the Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur. Consequently,
the Sub Judge assessed the value of the land and ultimately, enhanced the
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,300/- (Rupees One Thousand and Three Hundred
only) per cent from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, placing
reliance on Ex.A.3, the deed filed before the Court.
6. Challenging the same, the Government preferred the aforesaid appeals on
the ground that the Sub Court granted excessive compensation.
7. The background of these cases could be portrayed thus:
Unassailably and incontrovertibly, on earlier occasions, in various other
matters, connected with the same Section 4(1) notification, awards were passed
by the Division Bench of this Court. One such appeal is A.S.No.517 of 1997,
wherein this Court adopted the value of compensation as fixed in A.S.No.468 of
1993 assessing the compensation at Rs.1,200/- per cent, over which Special Leave
to Appeal(Civil).No.8660 of 2001, was filed by the Government which was
dismissed in liminie.
8. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants would
justifiably pray for following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of
this Court and for passing necessary orders.
9. The learned Government Pleader would agree to the factual position.
10. Perused the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court in
A.S.No.517 of 1997 dated 30.09.2002 and it is found that the compensation
towards the land was fixed at Rs.1,200/- per cent. It is quite obvious that but
for this land acquisition, the lands acquired might have got developed into
housing plots and that would have fetched very good sale consideration.
11. Considering all these facts alone, earlier Division Bench of this
Court awarded the compensation at Rs.1,200/- per cent and I am having no reason
to differ from the view already taken by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the net value of the land for awarding compensation is
arrived at Rs.1,200/- per cent (Rupees One Thousand and Two Hundred only).
Hence, if worked out, the net value of the land per acre would come to
Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only).
13. The claimants are also entitled to statutory entitlements over which
there is no dispute. For the enhanced amount in the award, the claimants are
entitled to get solatium as well as interest.
14. The learned Counsel for the claimants cited the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram v. R.S.Raveendran
reported in 2006-2-L.W.102 and an excerpt from it, would run thus:
“10.It is also relevant to note that Section 53 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 makes it clear that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
are applicable to all proceedings initiated under the said Act (Land
Acquisition Act). In view of the same, it is not in dispute that Order 41, Rule
33 C.P.C. is applicable to the land acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the
appeal is also continuation of the original proceedings, the said provisions are
applicable to the appeals also and in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court as well as this Court in Sunder v. Union of India, interest is payable for
the solatium amount, and in order to render substantial justice, we accept the
request of the counsel for respondents/claimants and hold that the solatium
amount also carries interest at the same rate as applicable to the enhanced
compensation and additional amount.”
15. As such, adhering to the aforesaid decision, the claimants are
entitled to appropriate interest on the solatium as well as the additional
amount awarded. The Government shall deposit the amount in the interest of both
sides within a period of six months from this date. Accordingly, all the
appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
rsb
To
The Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.