BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1529 of 2009 & M.P(MD)No 1 of 2009 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition Officer, Tenkasi. ..Petitioner/Respondents/ Referring Officer vs 1.S.M.Kaja Mohideen Sahib 2.Fatha Muthu Beevi 3.Sunaidal Beevi 4.Sirasunisa Beevi 5.Mohammed Hussain 6.Fathumal Beevi ..Respondents/ Petitioners/Claimants PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.02.2009 made in E.P.No.149 of 2006 in LAOP.No.90 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. !For Petitioner ...Mr.K.Nalla Thambi Addl.Govt.Pleader ^For Respondents...Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Caveator :ORDER
The Land Acquisition Officer, is the revision petitioner.
2.The lands of the claimants were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer
and an award of Rs.100/- per cent was ordered in LAOP.No.90 of 1987 and in the
LAOP Rs.3200/- per cent was awarded against the same, A.S.No.220 and 256 were
filed by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer and by common judgment
of this Court enhanced the compensation Rs.4,000/- per cent. Thereafter, the
claimants filed E.P for the realisation of compensation amount. In this case
4(1) notification was dated 25.04.1984 and award was passed on 10.08.1987 and
possession was taken on 17.08.1987. While calculating the amount the claimants
have calculated interest as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act, on the amount of
compensation and on the solatium at the rate of 12% per annum and after
appropriating the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer calculated the
interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year and thereafter at the rate of
15% per annum as per Section 28 and calculated a sum of Rs.30,10,936.20.
3.The revision petitioner filed counter stating that the calculation memo
given by the claimants is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and
according to him a sum of Rs.3,72,074/- is liable to be paid and therefore the
claimants are not entitled to the amount prayed for in the execution petition.
4.Mr.K.Nallathambi, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that
as per the Larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh -Vs-
Union of India reported in 2007 3 CTC 170, the interest is payable on solatium
only from the date of judgment in Sundar -Vs-Union of India reported in 2001 7
SCC 211 namely 19.09.2001 and earlier to that they are not entitled to claim
that amount and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim the amount as
prayed for.
5.On the other hand, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the claimants
submitted that in this case the award was passed in the year 1987 after coming
to the act of amendment 16 of 1984 and therefore as per Section 23(1-A) and
Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are
entitled the claim interest on solatium and therefore the calculation given by
the claimants is in accordance with the law and the revision petitioner is
liable to pay the same.
6.In the above said Larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court Gurpreet
Singh -Vs-Union of India reported in 2007 3 CTC 170, the question of entitlement
to claim interest on solatium when the same was not specifically granted by the
decree was considered and the Honourable Supreme Court in that judgment answered
the issue as follows:-
“It is well settled that an Execution Court cannot go behind the decree.
If therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has
been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or
decree of the Reference Court or of the Appellate Court, the Execution Court
will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on
Sunder (supra) on the ground that the execution Court cannot go behind the
decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the Appellate Court
does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases
where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the
Reference Court or the Appellate Court, and merely interest on compensation is
awarded, then it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio of
Sunder (supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in
such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in
execution. Otherwise, not, we also clarify that such interest on solatium can
be claimed only in pending exeuctions and not in closed executions and the
Execution Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the
judgment in Sunder (September 19,2001) and not for any prior period.”
7.In this case, as per the decree, the learned Sub-Judge has awarded
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession namely
17.08.1987 till the deposit for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate
of 15% per annum on the compensation which includes solatium. Therefore, the
payment of interest has been provided in the decree and as per the judgment of
the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Sundar -Vs-Union of
India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211, compensation includes the amount awarded
under Section 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the learned Sub-Judge, awarded interest on
solatium and therefore, the petitioners are entitlted to claim the same.
Further, the question of payment of interest on solatium from 19.09.2001 as per
the judgement in Sundar’s case (referred to above) they will not also arise and
the award was passed after the passing of Act 67/1984.
8.In this case, as per the calculation of the petitioner in E.P they have
calculated the amount as per the decree and hence the lower Court has correctly
allowed the application and ordered the recovery of the amount. Hence, I do not
find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the lower Court and the
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted three
months time to make the payment. No costs. Consequently the connected
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.
gsr
TO
The learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tenkasi.