IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23/04/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
A.S.No. 474 of 1993 and A.S. NO.512 of 1997
Cross Objection No.87 of 1994
and
all connected pending C.M.Ps.
A.S.No.474 of 1993:
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mettur. .... Appellant
-Vs-
N. Swaminathan .... Respondent
A.S.No.512 of 1997:
1. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Salem
2. The Assistant Director of Agriculture,
State Seed Form, Omalur,
Salem District. .... Appellants
Vs.
1. K. Angudurai
2. Alameluammal
3. K.P. Mohanasundaram
4. N. Swminathan
5. Ramasamy
6. Rajammal
7. Varathappan
8. Manickam .... Respondents
Cross Objection No.87 of 1994 in A.S.No.474 of 1993
N. Swaminathan .... Cross Objector
Vs.
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mettur .... Respondent
A.S.No.474 of 1993:
Appeal filed against Judgment and decree dated 10th August
1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge,
Sankari.
A.S.No.512 of 1997:
Appeal against judgment and decree dated 17th April 1996 made
in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Salem.
Cross Objection No.87 of 1994 in A.S.No.474 of 1993:
Cross Objection filed against the judgment and decree dated
10th August 1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of learned
Subordinate Judge, Sankari.
!For Appellants : Mr. Ashokan, Addl. G.P.
in both appeals assisted by V. Karthikeyan
and respondent in Government Advocate,
cross objection (Housing Board)
^For Respondents
in A.S.No.474/93 : Mr. B.T. Seshadri
and cross objector
Mr. S. Subbiah R2&3 in
A.S.No.512 of 1997
Mr. ARL. Sundaresan R4 in
A.S.No.512 of 1997
Mr. G. Jeremiah R7 & 8 in
A.s.No.512 of 1997
Mr. P. Jagadeesan R5 & 6 in
A.S.No.512 of 1997
:J U D G M E N T
E. PADMANABHAN,J
A.S.No.474 of 1993 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition
Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur challenging the entire
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge of
Sankari by judgment and award dated 10t 92 made in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991.
2. Mr. N. Swaminathan, sole respondent in A.S.No.474 of
1993 has filed cross objection No.87 of 1994, in so far as the learned
Subordinate Judge of Sankari in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 has disallowed the
portion of the claim for enhanced comp aimed by the cross objector in the said
L.A.O.P. Since A.S.No.474 of 1993 and Cross Objection arise out of the same
common judgment and award, they are taken up together for hearing.
3. A.S.No.512 of 1997 has been preferred by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Salem and the Assistant Director of Agriculture, State
Seed Farm of Salem as against the judgment and award dated 17th April 1996
made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 on the Subordinate Judge of Salem. No cross
objection has been preferred by any one of the eight respondents in this
appeal.
4. The subject matter of acquisition in both the appeals
arise out of one and the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act and in respect of contiguous lands. Therefore, at the
instance of learned Additional Pleader and the counsel for the respondents in
both the appeals, the above two appeals and one Cross Objection were
consolidated and taken up together for final hearing.
5. Heard Mr. Ashokan Additional Government Pleader and Mr.V.
Karthikeyan, Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the
appeals as well as respondent in Cross Objection No.87 of 1994, Mr. B.T.
Seshadri, learned counsel appear respondent in A.S.No.474 of 1993 and Cross
Objector in Cross Objection No.87 of 1994 , M/s. Subbiah; ARL. Sundaresan;
P. Jagadeesan; G. Jermiah for respondents in A.S.No.512 of 1997.
6. For the formation of Government Coconut Farm in Danishpet
Village, at the instance of the Assistant Director, Agriculture (Oil Seeds),
Salem, lands were acquired. Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act in 139 Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Department, dated
19.02.1990, published in Government Gazette dated 19.02.1990. The lands were
already under the occupation of the beneficiary even before issuance of
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act pursuant to the proceedings of
requisition ordered under Tamilnadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act 1956. There were certain proceedings by the land
owners and as a result of directions issued by the Division Bench of this
court, the acquisitio n of lands were undertaken under The Land Acquisition
Act 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on
19.02.1990; Section 6 Declaration was published on 19.09.1990. Award was
passed in Award No.2 of 1991 in respect of the followin g lands:
_____________________________________________
Survey No. Extent in Hectares
242/2B 1.12.0
243/1 2.55.0
243/2 1.12.5
244 2.62.0
297/1 2.25.00
——-
Total 9.66.5
-------
______________________________________________
7. In respect of the above 9.66.5 hectares, the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,19,670/- while
fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.44,958/- per
acre, which works out to Rs.449.58 per
8. The land owner N.Swaminathan claimed the market value at
the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. At the instance of land owner, a
reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of
the above 9.66.5 hectares, being t matter of award No.2 of 1991 dated
23.03.1991 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate
Judge, Sankari.
9. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari fixed the market
value of the acquired land at Rs.85,000/- per acre by judgment and award dated
10.08.1992. Challenging the enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has
preferred A.S.No.474 of 199 and owner has preferred Cross Objection in Cross
Objection No.87 of 1994. In the Cross Objection, the land owner prayed for
that the market value of the acquired land be fixed at Rs.1,50,000/-.
10. In respect of the remaining land covered by the same
Section 4(1) Notification dated 19.02.1990, separate award was passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.3 of 1991 on 24.03.1991. This award
covered in all measuring 25.16.5 f land owned by eight different individuals.
The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of wet lands measuring
7.61.0 hectares at Rs.60,000/- per acre, for irrigated dry lands measuring
16.0.00 hectares, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the m arket value at
Rs.44,958/- per acre and in respect of Manavari dry lands measuring 1.55.5
hectares, the market value was fixed at 34,951/- per acre besides usual
solatium and interest. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total
compensation of Rs.49,52 ,888/-, which includes 12% additional amount as well.
11. The following lands which are the subject matter of
L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and in all it measures 25.16.5 hectares.
_________________________________________________
Survey No. Extent in Hectares
299/1 0.71.5 Wet
299/2 1.41.5 Wet
308/1 0.56.0 Wet
308/2 0.06.0 Wet
308/3 1.16.0 Wet
310/1 0.52.0 Wet
310/2 0.03.0 Wet
310/3 0.23.5 Wet
310/4 0.06.5 Wet
310/5 0.24.5 Wet
310/6 0.48.5 Wet
313/1 0.11.0 Wet
313/2 2.01.0 Wet
302/2 0.09.0 irrigated dry
302/3 0.06.5 ”
304 3.36.0 "
305/1A 0.22.0 "
305/1B 2.46.0 "
305/2 1.04.0 "
309/1B 0.28.0 "
309/1C 0.12.0 "
309/1D 0.15.0 "
309/3 0.46.5 "
325 3.74.5 "
330 4.00.0 "
305/2A 0.02.0 Manavari dry
309/1A 0.01.0 "
309/1E 1.37.5 "
309/1F 0.09.5 "
309/1G 0.05.5 "
--------
Total 25.16.5
--------
____________________________________________________
12. At the instance of the eight land owners, a reference was
made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of
Salem under Section 18 of The Land Acquisition Act 1894.
13. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value at
the rate of Rs.95,000/- per acre for wet lands; Rs.85,000/- per acre for
irrigated dry lands and Rs.75,000/- per acre for manavari dry lands with usual
solatium, interest and compe
14. Challenging the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition
Officer has preferred the appeal. The land owners have not preferred any
cross objection nor they have preferred any separate appeals seeking for
enhancement of compensation over a e compensation awarded by the learned
Subordinate Judge of Salem.
15. In both the appeals, the crucial date for fixing the
market value of the land is one and the same, namely, 19.02.1990, which is the
date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. For convenience,
separate award came to be p herefore, there has been separate reference under
Section 18 of the Act and hence separate appeals.
16. In A.S.No.474 of 1993, separate compensation has been
awarded for the wells as well as towards certain developments and trees.
17. In L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, the claimants (which is the
subject matter in A.S.No.512 of 1997) marked Exs.A1 to A17, the Referring
Officer marked Exs.B1 to B17 besides Exs.C1 to C5, which are the Court
exhibits. The claimants examined them .W.1 to P.W.8, while the respondent
examined R.W.1 to R.W.4.
18. In L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991, against which A.S.No.474 of
1993 has been preferred, the claimants marked Exs.A1 to A12 besides examining
four witnesses, while the Land Acquisition Officer (Referring Officer) marked
Exs.B1 to B5 and examined ses. That apart one Court exhibit has been marked
as Ex.C.1.
19. Ex.A1 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 is the judgment in
L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari against
which the appeal in A.S.No.474 of 1993 has been preferred. Ex.A2 dated
23.10.1989, Ex.A3 dated 30.10.1989 and d 30.10.1989 are the sale deeds relied
upon in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, while the very same sale deeds have been marked
as exhibits A2, A3 and A1 in the other L.A.O.P. In other words same set of
documents are being relied upon to substantiate the claim of market value by
the claimants in both the appeals.
20. Exs.A2 and A3, sale deeds respectively dated 23.10.1989
and 30.10.1989 relates to Survey Nos. 223/3 and 38/3 and the sale
consideration paid under the said two documents respectively being Rs.85,000/-
and Rs.90,000/- per acre. The Land Officer has rejected Exs. A2 and A3,
since the sale transactions were between close relatives and it is sold at a
higher rate. Even though the sale transactions were one year prior to
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, Exs. A2 and A3 have been held to
be genuine sale transaction according to the learned Subordinate Judge. The
sale consideration recited in Exs.A2 and A3 as deposed by R.W.1 is in
conformity with the guideline values fixed by the Registration Department.
21. Apart from the said three documents, Exs.A15 to A17
respectively dated 07.11.1988, 24.01.1990 and 19.02.1990 were relied upon and
marked in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, which sale transaction were two years prior to
Notification under Section Act. As far as Ex.A.16 is concerned, the Land
Acquisition Officer, who was examined as R.W.1 has deposed that the value of
the wet lands would be Rs.10,000/- higher than the value of the irrigated dry
lands and the value of manavari dry lands would be Rs.10,000/- less than the
value of irrigated dry lands. But there is documentary evidence to
substantiate such a reference.
22. The learned subordinate judge in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995
fixed the market value of the acquired land based upon Ex.A.2, sale
transaction, by adding Rs.10,000/- per acre in respect of wet lands and
deducting Rs.10,000/- in respect of dry la ourt below had declined the award
of separate compensation for the wells but awarded compensation towards cement
concrete channels and pipe lines. The learned Subordinate Judge also awarded
interest from 18.03.1960, the date of taking possession less th e amount
already received as lease/compensation, even though Section 4(1) Notification
in respect of the lands came to be issued only on 19.02.1990.
23. The learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991
fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.84,000/-, awarded
Rs.2,00,000/- towards pipe line and Rs.8,700/- towards two wells and interest
from 18.03.1960, the date on which sion was taken by the State farm. In fact
9% interest was awarded for the period from 18.03.1960 to 17.03.1961 and for
the period subsequent to 18.03.1961, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded 15%
interest.
24. Challenging both the awards, the present appeals have
been preferred.
25. In these appeals, the following points arise for
consideration was
i) Whether the classification of land into dry, irrigated dry
and wet land is sustainable?
ii) What is the prevailing market value of the acquired land
as on 19.02.1990 the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in
respect of the three categories of lands?
iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation
towards Well?
iv) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation
towards improvements like underground pipe lines, Channels etc.?
v) From which date the claimants are entitled to payment of
interest under Section 34 of The Land Acquisition Act?
vi) Whether the claimants are entitled for a direction under
Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act?
Vii) Whether the claimants are entitled to solatium? If so,
at what rate?
Viii) Whether the claimants are entitled to payment of
interest on solatium?
ix) To what result, if any in the appeals?
x) To what result, if any in the Cross Objection?
26. As regards the first point for consideration, the Land
Acquisition Officer himself in his award No.3 of 1991 dated 07.02.1990
categorised the land, which are the subject matter of the said award into
three categories, viz., wet, irrigat manavari dry. The lands have also been
assessed as wet, irrigated dry and manavari dry. Therefore, in respect of
lands, which are the subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and A.S.No.512 of
1997, the classification, as recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer has also
been affirmed by the Court below. In fact the Land Acquisition Officer
himself has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.60,000/- per acre for wet land; Rs.44,958/- per acre for irrigated dry
lands and Rs.34,951/ – per acre towards manavari dry lands. Both the sides,
have not advanced contentions challenging the said classification. So also,
in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of award No.2 of 1991, the
revenue classification is only dry lands th ough admittedly there are wells.
Hence on the first point, the classification as adopted by Land Acquisition
Officer and affirmed by learned Subordinate Judge in the both the
L.A.O.Ps.deserves to be confirmed in these appeals. The point is answered
acco rdingly.
27. As regards the second point what was the prevailing
market value of the acquired land on the date of Notification under Section
4(1) of the Act, which date is common in both the appeals. The oral evidence
let in by either side is not o stance nor the tall claims made by the
witnesses could be accepted at all. The witnesses have made tall claims, but
without any basis. The only basis on which the market value could be arrived
at being Exs.A2 and A3 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and correspo nding document has
also been marked in the other L.A.O.P. Apart from Exs.A1 and A2, Ex.A.15,
A.16 and A.17 are also pressed into service. Under Ex.A.2 dated 23.10.1989,
Survey No.223/3 of the same Danishpet Village measuring 60 cents was conveyed
for a consideration of Rs.51,000/- and this being relied upon by the land
owners to contend that the market value works out to Rs.85,000/- per acre.
28. The Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the said Ex.A.1
as it is between close relatives. Ex.A.15 dated 07.11.1988 is a sale deed
executed by A. Kallannan in favour of Venkatachalam in respect of Survey
No.242/2B. Ex.A.16 dated 24.0 sale deed executed by Govinda gounder and
another in favour of Marimuthu measuring 1.01 acres in Survey No.242/B for a
sale consideration of Rs.44,958/-. Apart from the said exhibits, Exs. A3 and
A4 both dated 30.10.1989 executed by one C. Velayudham in favour of Thenmozhi
marked in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 are being relied upon. Ex.A.15 in L.A.O.P.No.1
of 1995, which is equivalent to Ex.A.1 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 is a sale
deed dated 7th November 1988 conveying R.S.No.242/1B and 242/2 at measuring 1
acre and 19 cents for a consideration of Rs.53,550/-, which works out to
Rs.44,958/- per acre. The survey numbers, namely, 242/1B and 242/2 of
Danishpet village, as seen from Ex.B.2, Sketch/Plan and sub-division there of
are far North of the acquired lands further just one acre 19 cents was the
subject of matter of conveyance, which extent when compared to the large
extent of acquired land is a small piece of land. When small extent of lands
are being sold, there will be number of purchasers when co mpared to large
extent of lands for which, there will be only few purchasers. Ex.B.2 in
L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 is equivalent to Ex.A.16 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 is a
sale deed dated 24th of January 1990 for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- in
respect of R .S.No.245/1A measuring 1.43 acres out of 2.93 acres. The said
Survey number 245/1 is located further North of R.S.No.244 and on cart track
and south of a Pond (kuttai).
29. Ex.A2 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 dated 30th October 1989
(equivalent to Ex.A3 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995) is a deed of conveyance by one
Velayudham in favour of Thenmozhi for a consideration of Rs.46,800/- in
respect of lands comprised in R B measuring 52 cents. R.S.No.387/2B is far
off from the acquired land and North of the Railway Line and Road, which is in
a different locality.
30. Ex.A2, Sale deed dated 23rd October 1989 sold by
R.Manickam in favour of M. Balasubramanian for a consideration of Rs.51,000/-
in respect of R.S.No.223/3 measuring 60 cents. R.S.No.223/3 is North-east of
the acquired land and far off a by very many survey fields. Apart from the
above sale transactions Ex.A.1 in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 form the basis of the
acquired land, not only it could be taken into consideration to assess the
market value in the locality. The Survey number 242 and sub-division is next
to two of the survey fields acquired and it works out to Rs.44,958/- per acre.
But it is anterior while it is next to the acquired land. All the above sale
deeds are taken into consideration and the documents referred to are severa l
months earlier in point of time to Section 4(1) Notification and some of them
is more than 18 months prior to Section 4(1) Notification and there is nothing
to show that there has been an appreciable increase in the market value of the
lands in the loc ality.
31. The learned Government Advocate and the counsel appearing
for the respondents took us through the Judgment in both the L.A.O.Ps, the
common documents relied upon by either side in both the O.Ps as well as the
plan and the oral evidence the benefit of considering all the sale
transactions relied upon by either side.
32. We have considered the entire documentary and oral
evidence, the passage of time and the small extent of the land, which are the
subject matter of various sale transactions, their location and relative
distance to the acquired land div lway line, while arriving at the market
value we have taken into consideration of Exs.A2, A3, A4, A15, A16 and A17 as
marked in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995 and in particular Exs.B1 and B2 respectively
dated 07.11.1988 and 24.01.1990 marked in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991 and Ex.A2
dated 30.10.1989 the contiguous extent of large extent of land as well as all
relevant circumstances we fix the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.51,000/- per acre for dry manavari; Rs.57,000/- per acre for irrigated dry
land and Rs. 63,000/- per acre for wet lands. As seen from the said
documents as well as the oral evidence let in by either side, we fix the
market value at Rs.51,000/- per acre for dry lands; for irrigated dry lands at
Rs.57,000/- per acre and for wet lands at Rs.6 3,000/- per acre.
33. As regards the claim of compensation towards well, the
learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, while rightly relying upon
the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 S.C 186 has rightly
disallowed the claim separate Well. Well is the source to cultivate the
lands.
In O. Janardhan Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector reported in A.I.R.
1995 S.C. 186, the Supreme Court has held thus:
“8.Since estimated construction costs of irrigation wells of
agricultural lands cannot form the basis for awarding compensation for such
irrigation wells independently of the compensation awardable for the
agricultural lands for the benefit of which h wells existed, the contentions
raised by the learned counsel in support of the appellants claim for grant of
enhanced compensation for the irrigation wells with reference to estimated
costs of construction of such wells prepared by engineers, do not co mmend
acceptance.
9. Irrigation wells for which enhanced compensation is sought in the
present appeal are admittedly those which existed in the acquired agricultural
lands for which enhanced compensation is awarded by the Civil Court, and the
High Court. Question o anting further enhanced compensation for the acquired
agricultural lands by this court in this appeal does not arise since this
Court has ordered that consideration of this appeal shall be restricted to
claim of the appellants for grant of enhanced compe nsation for their
irrigation wells.
34. However, in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991, the learned
Subordinate Judge of Sankari has awarded Rs.1,08,700/- towards well, which
award is contrary to law laid down by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court
and therefore, the award of compensa e well has to be disallowed and
accordingly it is set aside.
35. As regards the improvement, namely laying of cement pipe
line and channel in L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge has
awarded Rs.2,00,000/- and assessed the market value of the land as dry land,
there is no reason at al ere with the compensation awarded in this respect and
in fact no arguments were advanced by the learned Additional Government
Pleader in this respect. As there is no challenge to the award of
compensation towards pipe line, building underground channel etc. and other
structures, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation by
the learned Subordinate Judge.
36. Taking up the next point, Mr. B.T. Seshadri appearing
for the respondent/cross objector pointed out that the lands were taken
possession by the respondent/beneficiary even during 1959/1960 and therefore,
interest should be awarded from te. In L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1995, the learned
Subordinate Judge has awarded interest under Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act from 15.10.1959 onwards at the rate of 9%, further directing
that payments made towards lease amount shall be adjusted and the b alance be
paid, besides directing payment of 12% as additional amount and also awarded
15% interest after one year from the date of taking possession. While in
L.A.O.P.No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge directed payment under
Section 23(1-A) from 18.03.1960 and also directed payment of interest at 9%
from 01.06.1958 till 31.05.1969 and thereafter granted interest at 15% from
18.03.1960 onwards, while directing adjustment of payments already made to
lease. It is rightly pointed out by the lea rned Additional Government
Pleader that payment towards lease to the land owners by the Government Seed
Farm is in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Requisition and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1956. It is contended that compensation
pa yable under the Said State enactment and of the land owners, who have
grievance with respect to non-payment of compensation for theperiod ending
with Section 4(1) Notification, they have to work out their remedy before the
competent forum only and not by way of interest under Section 34 of The Land
Acquisition Act 1894.
37. According to the learned Government Advocate, liability
to interest, if any, in the present case commences from the date of
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act alone and not for any period
earlier thereto. As earlier possession rable to present acquisition, but it
is under a different provision. If the land owners are having any grievance
in respect of non-payment of lease or compensation for deprivation of their
possession earlier to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act , it is
rightly contended that the owners have to work out their remedies, if any,
under the Tamil Nadu Requisition and Acquisition Act under which possession
was taken.
38. Though Mr. B.T. Seshadri sought to sustain the view
taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in the respective awards, ultimately in
view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India V.
Budh Singh and others necessari dmit that the view taken by the learned
Subordinate Judges in the respective awards cannot be sustained.
39. In Union of India Vs. Budh Singh and others reported in
1995(6) SCC 233, the Supreme Court laid down that Court has no power to impose
any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and manner prescribed by
the statute as well as f anterior to the publication of Section 4(1)
notification under the Act. In that respect the Supreme Court held thus:
“3. The only question that arises for decision is whether the
respondents-owners of the lands are entitled to interest at 18% per annum from
15.3.1963, the date on which possession was initially taken, till 15.11.1984,
preceding the date on which th tification under Section 4(1) was published.
It is a jurisdictional issue and the finding in this behalf touches and
trenches into the jurisdictional power of the court, acting under the Act
regarding award of interest. The payment of interest under th e Act is
squarely covered by the provisions of the Act. The Government, while
exercising its power of eminent domain, are entitled to have the notification
under Section 4(1) published in the State Gazette. They are also entitled, in
case of urgency, to exercise the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and
thereon declaration under Section 6 published and would issue notice to the
owner of the land under Section 9. On expiry of 15 days thereof, the
Government is entitled to take possession from the ow ner. The award would be
made under Section 11 thereafter. In case urgency clause under Section 17(4)
was not invoked, the procedure of inquiry under Section 5-A shall be gone
through and thereafter declaration under Section 6 be made. The declaration
gives conclusiveness to the public purpose. After conducting an inquiry in
Chapter III of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer makes the award under
Section 11 and gives notice to the owner of the land under Section 16 and on
deposit of the compensati on makes payment thereof under Section 31 of the
Act. In case, after taking possession, if the amount is not paid, the
provision is made for payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act which
reads thus:
“34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is
not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the
Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of
nine per centum per annum from the t of so taking possession until it shall
have been so paid or deposited”
4. Under the proviso after the Amendment Act, if the amount is not
paid before one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at
the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of
expiry of the said period of year on the amount of compensation or part
thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.
5. The other provision relevant for this purpose is Section 28 of the
Act, which empowers the reference court or the High Court for awarding
interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till
date of payment as referred t rein before. Thus, it could be seen that the
statute covers the entire field of operation of the liability of the State to
make payment of interest and entitlement thereof by the owner when land has
been taken over and possession in consequence thereof, the land owner was
deprived of the enjoyment thereof. Thus, it could be seen that the court has
no power to impose any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and
manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a period anterior to the
publicat ion of Section 4(1) notification under the Act. The parameter for
initiation of the proceedings is the publication of the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act in the State Gazette or in an appropriate case in
District Gazette as per the local amen dments. But the condition precedent in
publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the appropriate gazette.
That would give legitimacy to the State to take possession of the land in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. Any possession o therwise would
not be considered to be possession taken under the Act. In fact, a situation
has been envisaged under Section 48(2) of the Act, namely, that when
proceedings under the Act were initiated and in the midstream the proceedings
were dropped, the owner who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the
property, the statute prescribes the remedy of determination of the amount of
compensation due to the owner for the damages suffered by the owner in
consequence of the notice of the proceedings unde r the Act. The statute also
imposes liability on the State to reimburse the costs incurred by the owner to
defend the proceedings under the Act. The Act is a self-conscience cannot be
extended in awarding interest, contrary to the provisions of the sta tute.”
40. While applying the above pronouncement, we hold that
interest, if any, could be ordered to be paid only from the date of Section
4(1) Notification under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award of
the learned Subordinate Judge .P.s are modified and accordingly the point is
answered against the land owners and in favour of The Land Acquisition
Officer.
41. As regards the next point, namely, direction to pay
additional amount in terms of Section 23(1-A), the said provision came to be
introduced by Central Act 16 of 1984. In this case, Notification under
Section 4(1), which is the relevant ich the market value has to be arrived at,
has been issued on 19.02.1990.
42. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer reported in (2002) 1 SCC 142 = to A.I.R 1 SCC 2951, the Supreme Court
laid down that for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded under
Section 23(1-A) the date of of the Section 4 (1) is the starting point and the
terminal point being the date of the award or the date of taking possession
which ever is earlier. But in the present case, the date of taking possession
was anterior to Section 4(1) Notification. The refore, that terminal is not
available. But in this case, award came to be passed on 07.02.1992 and from
the date of passing of award, we hold that the land owners are entitled to
additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period, namely, fro m
19.02.1990 to 07.02.1992.
43. In A.I.R. 2001 SC 2951, (Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer) the Supreme Court has held thus:
” 6. It is, as we see it, clear from Section 23(1-A) that the
starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded
thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the
dateof publication of the Section 4 fication. The terminal point for the
purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession,
whichever is earlier. In the present case, possession of the land having been
taken prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification, t hat terminal
is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award. The
High Court, therefore was in no error in holding that the appellants were
entitled to the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period
8.3.1991 to 6 .2.1993.
7. Section 23(1-A) admits of no meaning other than the
meaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room here for any
construction other than that given above. It is only where a provision is
ambiguous that a construction that leads t that is more just can be adopted.
Having regard to its clear terms, Section 23(1-A) must receive the only
construction it can bear. We are of the view, therefore, that the law has
been correrctly laid down in the decision in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W .D.
Schemes V. M.A. Jabbar and that it has not been correctly laid down in
Asstt. Commr. Gadag Sub-Division V. Mathapathi Basavannewwa and, for that
matter in State of H.P. V. Dharam Das.”
The award of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is answered thus.
44. Being a compulsory acquisition, the claimants are
entitled to solatium. Section 23(2) came to be amended even during the year
1984. Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the present
case on 19.02.1990. Therefore, t ers are entitled to solatium at the rate of
30% on the market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of
acquisition.
45. On the point as to whether the claimants are entitled to
interest on solatium, the recent pronouncement of the larger Bench of Supreme
Court in Sundar V. Union of India reported in 2001(7) SCC 211 is on the
point. Hence solatium also, ts/land owners are entitled to interest.
Therefore, following the Supreme Court, we held the land owners are entitled
to payment of interest on solatium as well.
46. In the result,
a) We fix the market value of the acquired land as here under:
i) in respect of Dry lands at Rs.51,000/- per acre;
ii) in respect of irrigated dry lands at Rs.57,000/- per acre;
iii) in respect of wet lands at 63,000/- per acre.
b) We affirm the award of compensation in respect of
improvements like underground pipe line, other structures or buildings awarded
by the Courts below.
c) We set aside the award of compensation in respect of wells;
d) We direct payment of solatium at 30% with interest from the
date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
e) We direct payment of additional amount at 12% per annum
under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for the period from 19.02.1990, the date of
Section 4(1) Notification till 07.02.1992, the date of passing of award on the
total value.
f) We direct payment of interest from 19.02.1990, at 9% p.a.
for a period of one year from the date of Section 4(1) Notification and at the
rate of 15% p.a. after the expiry of one year till payment of compensation
while giving credit to s already made from time to time.
47. With the above directions, both the appeals are allowed
in part, cross objection is dismissed and all connected pending C.M.P.s are
also dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs in these
appeals.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
sl
To
1. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari (with records)
2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Salem (with records)
3. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.