PETITIONER:
STATE OF MADRAS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K. N. SHANMUGHA MUDALLAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/03/1976
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1057 1976 SCR (3) 536
1976 SCC (2) 406
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 23 and 24 Quantum
of compensation -Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948-Whether
compensation under Land Acquisition Act can be claimed if
the estate is abolished-Interest of compensation to be
allowed, from what date.
HEADNOTE:
The State of Madras acquired land belonging to the
respondent landlords. The Land Acquisition officer gave his
award determining the compensation payable. On a reference
made to the Subordinate judge certain compensation was
determined. Interest was awarded to the respondents on the
compensation amount from 1st December, 1949 because in the
opinion of the Subordinate Judge, possession of the land
had been taken on that date.
On an appeal, the High Court affirmed the decision of
the Subordinate Judge regarding the rate of compensation.
The High Court also rejected the contention of the appellant
that the land had vested in the Government under the Madras
States Abolition Act, 1948, and, therefore, the respondents
were not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition
Act. The High Court found that there was no material on
record to show that the possession of the land had been
taken prior to the date of the award by the Land Acquisition
officer. Interest was accordingly directed to run from the
date of the award, i.e. November, 1951.
In an appeal by certificate, the appellant contended:
(1) The land in question vested under the
Abolition Act in the State and the
respondents were, therefore, not entitled to
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
(2) The quantum of compensation awarded by the
High Court was excessive.
(3) Interest should have been allowed from 1st
December, 1949.
^
HELD: ( 1 ) There were . two alternative courses open
to the State either to proceed under the Land Acquisition
Act or to take over the land under the Abolition Act.
Although the estate was notified under the Abolition Act,
the proceedings under that Act were stayed and the matter
proceed l under the Land Acquisition Act. It was not open to
the appellant in the particular reference made at the
instance of the respondents to the Subordinate Judge to set
up a claim adverse to the interest of the respondents. The
High Court rightly rejected the contention of the appellant
in this behalf. [538D-E, G-H]
(2 ) Both the High Court as well as the Subordinate
Judge awarded the compensation in accordance with the
previous decisions which laid down a formula. No cogent
grounds have been shown to us to interfere with the
concurrent findings in this respect. [539B-C]
(3) There is no reason to disagree with the High Court
judgment regarding the date on which the interest should run
on the amount of compensation. [539-G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1425 of
1968.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 5-8-74 of the
Madras High Court in Appeal No. 448 of 1960.
A. V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
K. Jayaram and R. Chandresekhar for Respondent No. 1
Ex-parte for Respondents 2-8.
537
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This appeal on certificate is by the State
of Madras, now Tamil Nadu, against the judgment of Madras
High Court affirming on appeal the award of learned
Subordinate judge Salem in respect of the amount of
compensation payable to the respondents for acquisition of
land under the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court,
however, directed that the interest on the amount awarded
shall run from November 19, 1951, the date of the award by
the Land Acquisition officer and not from December 1, 1949
as ordered by the Subordinate Judge.
On July 12, 1949 notification under section 4 of the
Act was issued for`the acquisition of 19 acres 45 cents of
dry land situated in Alegapuram Mitta for the Salem Fair
Lands Co-operative Society Ltd. On December 19, 1950.
Alegapuram Mitta was notified under the Madras Estates
Abolition Act (Act 26 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as
the Abolition Act). A writ petition was filed in the High
Court to challenge that notification. Further proceedings in
pursuance of the notification were stayed by the High Court
by order dated January. 1, 1951. The Society for which
acquisition was being made deposited in the meantime the
probable cost of the land on September 13, 1950. On,
November 19, 1951 the Land Acquisition officer announced his
award.
The respondents, it may be stated, were the
Melevaramdars (land holders) of the land in question.
Kudiwaramdars (cultivators) were also, besides the
respondents, parties to the proceedings before the Land
Acquisition officer. The Land Acquisition officer by his
award dated November 19, 1951 awarded compensation to the
cultivators at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per acre for part of
the land near the road and at the rate of Rs. 1,300 per acre
for the rest of the land. Rs. 520, 11 As, 1 P the
capitalised value of the net rental income was held to be
the amount payable to the respondents. The Kudiwaramdars
were content with the compensation awarded to them, but the
respondents who were, as already mentioned above,
Melavaramdars asked for a reference to court under section
18 of the Act for claiming enhanced compensation. According
to the respondents, they were entitled to one-third of the
value of the totality of the interest in the land. According
further to the respondents, compensation for the total land
should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre Learned
Subordinate Judge held that the respondents were entitled to
50 percent of the compensation awarded in respect of the
Melawaram interest in the land. The Subordinate Judge in
this context relied r upon an earlier decision of the Madras
High Court wherein it had been held that the rights of
Melavaramdars were not confined only to rent from land and
that they had other recognised rights and were entitled to
compensation for those rights. The respondents were thus
held entitled to compensation for their Melavaramdar
interest at the rate of Rs. 750 per acre in respect of land
near the road and Rs. 650 per acre in respect of the
remaining land. Interest was awarded to the respondents on
the compensation amount from December 1, 1949 2-608SCI/76
538
because, in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, possession
of the land had been taken from that date.
On appeal the High Court affirmed the decision of the
Subordinate Judge regarding the rate of compensation. The
contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the
land had vested in the Government under the Abolition Act,
the respondents were not entitled to compensation under the
Land Acquisition Act, was rejected. It was observed that in
the land acquisition proceedings the Government was estopped
from denying the absence of any interest in the claimants
whom the Government had made parties to the proceedings.
Regarding the date from which interest on the amount or
compensation should accrue, the High Court found that there
was no material on the record to show that possession of the
land had been taken prior to the date of the award by the
Land Acquisition officer. Interest was accordingly directed
to run from the date of the award.
In appeal before us Mr. Rangam on behalf of the
appellant-state has urged that as the land in question has
vested under the Abolition Act in the State the respondents
are not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition
Act. We find it difficult to accede to this submission, for
we are of the opinion that in case the State wanted to take
over the land under the Abolition Act it should not have
proceeded to acquire the interest of the respondents in the
land in dispute under the Land Acquisition Act. There were
two alternative courses open to the State, either to proceed
under the Land Acquisition Act or to take over the land
under the Abolition Act. Although the estate was notified
under the Abolition Act, the proceedings under that Act were
stayed and the matter proceeded under the Land Acquisition
Act. As the proceedings which were continued were under the
Land Acquisition Act the compensation payable had also to be
paid in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The
reference which was made by the Land Acquisition officer to
the Subordinate Judge under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act was with respect to the quantum of
compensation payable to the respondents because the
respondents had felt dissatisfied with the amount awarded to
them as compensation by the said officer. The underlying
assumption of those proceedings was that the respondents had
an interest in the land. If it was the case of the appellant
that the respondents had been divested of their interest in
the land and the same had vested in the appellant State, the
appellant should have taken appropriate steps to make such a
claim in accordance with law. No such claim seems to have
been made. The High Court expressly left open the question
of the claim of the State Government to the amount of
compensation deposited on the score that Melwaramdar
respondents were not entitled to it by reason of having lost
all their interest in the land at the relevant point of
time. We agree with the High Court that it was not open to
the appellant-State in the particular reference made at the
instance of the respondents to the Subordinate Judge to set
up a claim adverse to the interest of the respondents. There
is also we find nothing in the award of the learned
Subordinate Judge to show that any question was raised
before him that the amount of compensation was not payable
to the
539
respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. This question appears to have been
agitated for the first time only in the appeal before the
High Court. The High Court rejected the contention in this
behalf. We find no cogent ground to take a different view.
As regards the quantum of compensation, the High Court
has referred to the previous decisions which show that the
formula gene- rally adopted is to pay one-third of the total
compensation to Melavaramdars and two-thirds of the
compensation to Kudiwaramdars. In accordance with that
formula, the respondents would be entitled to one-half of
the compensation payable to Kudiwaramdars. Both the
Subordinate Judge and the High Court awarded compensation in
accordance with this formula. No cogent ground has been
shown to us as to why we should interfere with the
concurrent finding in this respect. We also find no reason
to disagree with the High Court regarding the date from
which interest should run on the amount of compensation.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
P.H.P. Appeal dismissed.
540
