BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/10/2010 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Ramanathan C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1050 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1051 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1052 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1053 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,&1 of 2009 C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1050 of 2009 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Defence Purpose Unit Nanguneri Now through the Revenue Divisional Officer Tirunelveli - 9. ... Petitioner/ 1st Respondent/
Referring Officer
Vs
1. P.Saraswathi
2. P.Ravikumar
3. P.Shanthi
4. P.Jayaraj Kumar .. Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners/ Claimants
5. The Union of India
rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
Madras Circle
Chennai – 35. … 5th Respondent/ 2nd Respondent/
Beneficiary
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1051 of 2009
The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition)
Defence Purpose Unit
Nanguneri
Now through the
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli – 9. … Petitioner/ 1st Respondent/
Referring Officer
Vs.
1. Iyammal
2. Manjula
3. Ananthi
4. Muthulakshmi …1st Respondent/Petitioner/ Claimant
5. The Union of India
rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
Madras Circle
Chennai – 35. …2nd Respondent/ Respondent/
Beneficiary
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1052 of 2009
The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition)
Defence Purpose Unit
Nanguneri
Now through the
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli – 9. … Petitioner/ 1st Respondent/Referring Officer
Vs.
1. M.Sankaranarayanan …1st Respondent/Petitioner/ Claimant
2. The Union of India
rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
Madras Circle
Chennai – 35.
…2nd Respondent/ Beneficiary/
2nd Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1053 of 2009
The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition)
Defence Purpose Unit
Nanguneri
Now through the
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirunelveli – 9.
… Petitioner/ 1st Respondent
Vs.
1. A.Subbarayalu .. 1st Respondent/ Petitioner/ Claimant
2. The Union of India
rep. By its Defence Estate Officer
Madras Circle
Chennai – 35. .. 2nd Respondent/ Beneficiary/
2nd Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1050 of 2009
Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.262
of 2006 in LAOP.No.93 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Tirunelveli.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1051 of 2009
Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.370
of 2006 in LAOP.No.97 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Tirunelveli.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1052 of 2009
Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.266
of 2006 in LAOP.No.96 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Tirunelveli.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 1053 of 2009
Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order and decreetal order dated 22.04.2009 made in E.P.No.263
of 2006 in LAOP.No.95 of 1985 on the file of the Learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Tirunelveli.
!For Petitioners in all CRPs. ... Mr. K.Nalla Thambi ^For Respondents ... Mr. K.Srinivasan for Caveator in R1 to R4 in C.R.P.No.1050 to 1051 of 2009 & for Caveator R1 in C.R.P.No.1053 of 2009 ... Mr. R.Arumugam for Caveator in C.R.P.No. 1052 of 2009 :COMMON ORDER
In all these revisions the Special Tahsildar, Tirunelveli, namely the Land
Acquisition Officer, who is now the Revenue Divisional Officer, is the revision
petitioner.
2. The revision petitioner acquired the lands belonged to the respondents
in these revisions for the Defence purpose and passed an order in Award No.1 of
1983 dated 22.04.1983. The possession was taken on 01.01.1981 and the revision
petitioner passed an award of Rs.100/- per cent for the lands acquired. The
owners applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act and reference was
ordered in LAOP Nos.93,94,95,96 and 97 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Sub-
Court, Tirunelveli and the learned Sub-Judge enhanced the compensation from
Rs.100 to Rs.150/- per cent.
3. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before
this Court and this Court has further enhanced the compensation to Rs.200/- per
cent and that has become final. Thereafter, the claimants filed
E.P.Nos.262,263,266 and 370 of 2006 for executing the award passed in
LAOP.Nos.93, 94, 95, 96 and 97 of 1985, by calculating the compensation as per
the provisions of Sections 23 (1) 23(1-A) 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, and after giving credit to the various payments of Revenue
Officer, claimed a sum of Rs.11,14,713.36, Rs.3,70,762.06, Rs.4,64,885/- and
Rs.6,07,403.92.
4. The revision petitioner filed a counter stating that the calculation
memo filed by the claimants are not in accordance with the law and they are not
entitled to claim interest on solatium as the award was passed on 22.04.1983,
before coming into force of Act 68 of 1984 and also submitted their own
calculation and contended that the amount claimed by the claimants cannot be
ordered and as per their calculation, only a very meagre amount is to be paid to
the claimants. The learned sub-judge relied upon the judgment in (Sundar Vs.
Union of India ) reported in (2001) 7 S.C.C. 211 negatived the contention of the
revision petitioner and held that as per the said judgment, the claimants are
entitled to claim interest on solatium also and the calculation given by the
claimants as stated in E.P. is proper and allowed the petition. Aggrieved over
the same, these revisions are filed.
5. Mr.Nallathambi, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted
that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Sundar Vs. Union of
India ) reported in 2001 (7) S.C.C. 211, the claimants are not entitled to any
interest as the award was passed earlier to 1984 and therefore, the calculation
of the claimants are not correct and the claimants are not entitled to amount
claimed by them.
6. On the other hand, Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the
claimants in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1050, 1051 and 1053 of 2009 and Mr.R.Arumugam, the
learned counsel for the claimants in C.R.P(NPD)No.1052 of 2009, submitted that
the calculation made by the claimants in the execution proceedings are in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 23(1), 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28
of the Land Acquisition Act, and these matters have been dealt with by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ) reported in (2007)
3 C.T.C. 170, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all
these aspects and held that the claimants are entitled to claim interest on
solatium and therefore, the order of the Lower Court need not be interfered
with.
7. To appreciate the contention of the parties, certain dates are
relevant. It is held by the learned Sub-Judge in the above LAOPs that
possession was taken on 01.01.1981, though 4(1) notification was published on
07.07.1982, and award was passed on 22.04.1983, Act 68 of 1984 came into force
on 24.09.1984. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sub-Judge enhanced the
compensation from Rs.100/- per cent to Rs.150/- per cent with 30% solatium and
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession viz.,
01.01.1981, till the date of award dated 20.04.1983 and thereafter, at 9% per
annum. In the first appeal filed against the award in A.S.Nos.1198 to 1200 of
1989, 957, 963, 965, 966, 1269 of 1990 and 432 of 1994 dated 25.04.2009, this
Court had held as follows:
” 10. With regard to statutory amounts payable to the claimants, it is
made clear that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only for the market
value of the lands acquired. In addition to this, the claimants are entitled to
additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1)
notification, till the date of passing the award or delivery of possession,
whichever is earlier. It is also made clear that the claimants are entitled to
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of
one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit.
It is further made clear that the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium
and additional amount. Further, the issue regarding grant of interest on
solatium is pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
depending on the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court, the claimants are
entitled to file an appropriate petition before the Sub-Court”.
8. It is made clear in the order passed by this Court that the issue
regarding the grant of interest on solatium is pending before the Larger Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and depending on the outcome of the case before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to file an appropriate
petition before the Sub-Court. Further, this Court has also upheld the finding
of the learned Sub-Judge that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only
for the market value of the land acquired and also entitled to additional amount
at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification, till the date
of passing of the award or delivery of possession, whichever is earlier and the
claimants are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15%
per annum till the date of deposit. The order of this Court was as per Section
23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The pendency of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by
this Court was the case reported in (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India )
reported in (2007) 3 C.T.C. 170, wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court upheld the judgment rendered in (Sundar Vs. Union of India )
reported in 2001 (7) S.C.C. 211, insofar as the calculation of the compensation
as per Section 23 (1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Act, and also upheld the
appropriation of the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the
compensation as per the law laid down in (Prem Nath Kapur & Another Vs. National
Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., and others) reported in 1995 Supp (5) SCR
790.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also raised the question whether in the light
of the decision in (Sundar Vs. Union of India ) reported in 2001 (7) S.C.C.
211, awardee/ decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in
execution though it is not specifically granted in the decree and held 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 mearly 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 executions 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”
10. Therefore, it has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above judgment that when the reference Court or Appellate Court does not
specifically refer to interest on solatium or in case where claim had not been
made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the
Appellate Court and it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio
of Sunder and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such
an event, interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited to the
Execution Court. It is further made clear that the Execution Court will be
entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in (Sundar Vs.
Union of India ) rendered on 19.09.2001 and as per the judgment of our High
Court in the appeals filed against the LAOPs referred to above, it has been made
clear that the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is depending on the
outcome by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment answered the question
that the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to interest on solatium, when
it is not specifically rejected in the decree. But, in this case it is seen from
the decree that 30% solatium and 12% interest as per Section 23(1-A) was granted
and as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled to
claim interest on the excessive amount of compensation.
12. As stated supra, in all these cases, interest was claimed under
Section 28 of the Act, from the date of taking possession which is against the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment and the
claimants are entitled to claim interest as per Section 28 only from 19.09.2001
(i.e) the date of judgment in Sunder case and they are not entitled to claim
interest prior to that period. As the claimants have calculated the interest on
solatium from the date of taking possession, the same is contrary to the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Lower Court without appreciating
the judgment rendered in (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ) reported in 2007
(3) C.T.C. 170, allowed the Execution Court, as if the calculation given by the
claimants is right and hence, the order of the Lower Court is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the Lower Court and the claimants are directed to file a
fresh calculations as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
(Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India ) reported in 2007 (3) C.T.C. 170, as
indicated above by calculating interest on solatium from 19.09.2001. Hence, the
order of the Lower Court is set aside and the revisions are allowed and the
revisions are remanded to the Lower Court. The claimants are entitled to file
fresh calculations as per the judgment rendered in 2007 (3) C.T.C. 170 and the
Executing Court is also directed to verify the same and pass appropriate orders.
Considering the fact that the land was acquired in the year 1981, the Lower
Court is directed to pass orders within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of this order in the execution application filed by the respondents.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
gsr/sd
To
The Learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tirunelveli.