{"id":260000,"date":"2009-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-02T14:29:44","modified_gmt":"2016-02-02T08:59:44","slug":"sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25 .11.2009\n\nCORAM:\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.R.P.(NPD).No.1006  of 2006  \n1. Sarada Rajagopalan\n2. Usha Srinivasan\n3. Vasantha Ramachandran\n4. R.Sunderganapathy\n5.Ananda Ramasundar\n6. Mathangi narayanamurthi\n7. Anupama\n8. Yamuna Ganesan                        ... Petitioners\/Petitioners 2 to 9\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Sub Collector,\n    rep. by Tahsildar,\n    Polachi, Udumalpet.\n\n2. The Secretary,\n    Coimbatore  Marketting \n    Committee, \n     Coimbatore 641 \t\t\t        ... Respondents\/Respondents\n\nPrayer: Petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India  against fair and final order dated 01.12.2005 made in E.P.No.32 of 2002 in L.A.O.P.No.99 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge, Udumalpet.\n\t\t\t\t\t. . .\n\t\tFor Petitioner       : Mr. K.M.Santhanagopalan,S.C\n                                             for Mr.S.Thangavel\n\n\t         For Respondents  : Mrs.Bhavani Subburayan (R1)\n\t\t\t\t\t    Mr. V. SriKanth (R2)\n               \t\t                 . . . \n   \nO R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThe Civil Revision Petitioners\/Petitioners 2 to 9\/Claimants 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 have has filed this Civil  Revision Petition against the order dated 01.12.2005 made in E.P.No.32 of 2003 in L.A.O.P.No.99 of 1988 passed by the learned Sub Ordinate Judge, Udumalpet, in dismissing the Execution Petition filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 11(2) of C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The Executing Court while passing orders in E.P.No.32 of 2003  on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet has inter alia observed that the amounts have been deducted and interest has not been calculated and for the original amount of Rs.17,41,214\/- every time the interest has been prayed for and added and moreover, there is a difference between the amount shown in the Calculation memo and the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition and resultantly, the Memo of Calculation filed on the side of  Revision petitioners\/Petitioners is a wrong one and that the Execution petition is not to be accepted and consequently, dismissed  it without costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. The learned counsel for  Revision petitioners\/Petitioners  submits that the Executing Court has not taken into account of the fact that in the Memo of Calculation filed by the first respondent along with the counter statement in E.P.No.32 of 2003,  no interest has been calculated on solatium and on additional market value and further that the first respondent, based on his Memo  calculation has stated in his counter statement  that the entire amount has been paid and also that an Executing court has committed an error in ignoring the important fact that  no interest has been paid by the respondents on solatium and the petitioners are entitled to claim interest on the excess compensation, solatium etc. in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs Union of India reported in 2002(2) L.W 39 and also in view of the direction given by this court in its Judgment dated 12.07.2001 in A.S.No.1101 of 1993   and added further that as per Section 53<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code   is applicable to the proceedings before the Court concerned and as per Section 26(2)<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, the award passed in L.A.O.P. is a money decree and  under Order 21 Rule (1)  and (2)  of C.P.C how the apportionment is to be made  has been set out and in the case of a debt due with interest, the normal rule is that any payment made in the first instance is applied towards  the satisfaction of interest and thereafter tot he principal and  there are no arrears in the calculation of memo filed  on the side of the petitioners and in any event, instead of directing the parties to file a fresh memo of calculation, the Executing Court has committed an error in dismissing the Execution Petition  without any reason therefrom and in as much as the impugned order of the Executing Court in E.P.No.32 of 2003 dated 01.12.200t is against  law and facts, the same needs to be set aside by this Court in the interest  of justice by means of allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. Before the Executing Court in E.P.No.32 of 2003  a Memo of Calculation has been filed upto 03.10.2002, which indicates that there is a  balance of Rs.26,64,500\/- to be paid to the petitioners along with future interest  till  the date of payment. However, the first respondent has filed a memo of calculation before the Executing Court , in and by which, the balance of Rs.5,96,656.70  has been deposited  on 04.07. 2002 in the Sub court, Udumalpet.  Again on 24.01.2005, a revised memo of calculation has been filed on the Petitioner’s  side before the Executing Court in E.P.No.32 of 2003, in and by which, the total amount due as on 24.01.2005  comes to Rs.30,11,594\/-  It is to be pointed out that this Court on 12.07.2001, in A.S.No.1101 of 1993 and Cross Objection 90 of 1996, while dismissing the appeal and allowing the Cross Objection, has passed the following decree:
\n“1. That the respondents\/respondents 2 to 8 & 11\/Claimants\/Cross Objectors be and hereby are entitled to the compensation (market value ) as fixed by the Court below and solatium at the rate of 30%  on the market Value, of the lands acquired.\n<\/p>\n
2. That the respondents\/respondents 2 to 8 & 11\/Claimants\/Cross Objectors be and hereby are entitled to a further sum calculated at 12% per annum from the date of 4(1)  Notification till the date of passing of award or delivery of possession whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
3. That the respondents\/respondents 2 to 8 & 11\/Claimants\/Cross Objectors be and hereby are entitled to  interest on the market value, the additional amount and solatium at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of  deposit.”\n<\/p>\n
              5. Subsequently, respondents 1 and 2 in the Civil Revision Petition before this Court are the appellants in A.S.No.1101 of 1993 and Cross Objectors 1 to 8  are  figured as Revision petitioners. Further, some of the Revision petitioners were figured  as respondents in the appeal and as Cross Objectors 1 to 8 therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. The learned counsel for  Revision Petitioners cites  a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sunder Vs Union of India reported in 2002(2) L.W 39 wherein it has been held as follows:
\n ” Interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land, and interest awardable under S.28 would include market value and the statutory solatium and  also the legal obligation on the part of the Collector is to pay ‘ the compensation awarded by him’ and it would include  not only the sum arrived at as per S.23(1) but the remaining subsections as well.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. He also relies on a decision in the case of State of Haryana VS Smt.Kailashwati and others reported in A.I.R.1980 Punjab and Haryana 117  wherein it has been observed as follows:
\n“The solatium provided  for under Section 23<\/a> (2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, further from the plain terms of Section 28<\/a> of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. The language of Sec.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28<\/a> therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28<\/a> in terms warrant and authorise the grant of  interest on solatium as well.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. Further, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of the Court, the decision in Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram, Thjakkalai village, Kalkulam taluk, Kanyakumari District Vs. R.s.Raveendran reported in2006-2-L.W.102, wherein it has been held as follows:
\n“As per Proviso to Section 28<\/a>,  where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15 per cent  per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry-Judgment and decree of the learned subordinate Judge has to be modified in so far as payment of interest in terms of section 28<\/a> and not at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as fixed.
\nAfter  the decision of the Supreme Court, interest is payable not only to the actual market value of the land, but also for the additional amount as well as solatium”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. He also seeks in aid of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in Gurpreet Singh Vs Union of India reported in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457 wherein  it has been held as follows:
\n“Scheme of S.28 of the 1894  Act also indicates such a scheme of appropriation and further, when  an award-decree is passed specifying the amounts under different heads, as required under S.26  of the 1894 Act, and the judgment debtor State makes a deposit of specified sums under these different heads,  it will amount to the judgment debtor intimating to the decree holder as to how the sum deposited is to be applied and decree holder will not be entitled to appropriate at his volition”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.  Before  this Court on the side of the Revision Petitioners, a revised memo of calculation h as been filed in respect of the amount due as on 17.09.2009, which comes to Rs.42,26,271.25 and the details of the said calculation is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Amount in Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Compensation amount awarded by L.A.O. At Rs.15,192\/- per acre for 7.16 acres
\n         1,08,774\/-\n<\/p>\n
Value of trees
\n2100\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total Market Value
\n         1,10,874.00
\nAddl.amount U\/S 23(1-A) at 12% on Rs.1,10,874\/- from 06.05.1986 the date of Sec.4(1) Notification to 29.02.1988 the date of passing of award for 1 year 9 months and 24 days.\n<\/p>\n
            24,156\/-\n<\/p>\n
Solatium U\/S.23(2) at 30% on Rs.1,10,874\/-\n<\/p>\n
33262\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total Compensation awarded by L.A.O.\n<\/p>\n
   1,68, 292.00
\nEnhanced compensation as awarded by Sub-Court, Udumalpet at Rs.1,74,000\/- per acre for 7.16 acres
\n                                                                                                                                                                                                             12,53,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Value of Trees as enhanced
\n5000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total Market Value
\n        12,58,000.00
\nAddl.Amount U\/S.23(1-A) at 12% on Rs.12,58,000\/- from 06.05.1986, the  date of Sec.4(1) Notification to 29.02.1988, the date of passing of award by L.A.O. For 1  year 9 months and 24 days.\n<\/p>\n
         2,74,106\/-\n<\/p>\n
Solatium U\/S23(2) at 30% on Rs.12,58,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
          3,77,400\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total enhanced compensation awarded by Court
\n        19,09,506.00
\nBalance Compensation to be paid:\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Market
\n                                                   Value
\n     12% Addl.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                              Amount
\n30%  Solatium\n<\/p>\n
1.Enhanced compensation   12,58,000.00
\n2,74,106.00
\n3,77,400.00
\nii.Less amount awarded        1,10,874.00
\n   and deposited by
\n   L.A.O.P. into
\n   Sub Court,
\n   Udumalpet on
\n   04.09.1988
\n24,156\/-\n<\/p>\n
33,262\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                        11,47,126.00
\n2,49,950.00
\n3,44,138.00<\/p>\n
Total enhanced compensation amount to be paid\n<\/p>\n
i) Market Value\n<\/p>\n
ii)12% Addl.Amount\n<\/p>\n
iii) 30% Solatium
\n11,47,126.00
\n          2,49,950.00
\n3,44,138.00
\n Total enhanced compensation amount to be paid                    17,41,214.00<\/p>\n
Interest Calculation<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\nInterest at 9% p.a on Rs.1,68,292\/-(amount awarded by L.A.O) from 11.03.1988, the date of possession to 04.09.1988, the date of deposit by L.A.O.(for 178 days) as per Sec.34
\n7386<\/span>
\n2<\/span>
\nInterest at 9% on Rs.17,41,214\/- (enhanced compensation amount as awarded by Court) from  11.03.1988, the date of possession to 10.03.1989(for 1 year) as per Sec.28
\n1,56,709.00
\n3<\/span>
\nInterest at 15%p.a. on Rs.17,41,214\/- from 11.03.1989 to 25.01.1994, the date of 1st deposit of Rs.5,42,172\/- for 4 years 10 months and 14 days, as per Sec.28
\n12,72,397.00<\/p>\n
Total (1+2+3)
\n14,36,492.00<\/p>\n
Less the sum ofRs.5,42,172\/- deposited on 25.01.1994 (1st deposit)
\n5,42,172.00<\/p>\n
Balance
\n8,94,320.00
\n4<\/span>
\nInterest at 15% p.a on Rs.17,41,214\/- from 26.01.1994 to 06.06.1994, the date of 2nd deposit of Rs.5,42,140\/- for 4 months and 10 days as per Sec.28
\n94215<\/p>\n
Total
\n9,88,535.00<\/p>\n
Less the sum of Rs.5,42,140\/- deposited on 06.06.1994(2nd deposit)
\n5,42,140.00<\/p>\n
Balance
\n4,46,395.00
\n5<\/span>
\nInterest  at 15% p.a on Rs.17,41,214\/- from 07\/06\/1994 to 07.02.1997, the date of 3rd  deposit of Rs.10,84,345\/- for 2 years and 8 months, as per Sec.28
\n6,94,485.00<\/p>\n
Total
\n11,40,880.00<\/p>\n
Less the sum of Rs.10,84,345\/- deposited on 07.02.1997 (3rd deposit)
\n10,84,345.00<\/p>\n
Balance
\n56535
\n6<\/span>
\nInterest at 15% p.a on 17.41,214\/- from 08.02.1997 to 04.07\/2002, the date of 4th deposit of Rs.5,96,657\/- for 4 years , 4 months and 16 days as per Sec.28
\n11,43,237.00<\/p>\n
Total
\n11,99,772.00<\/p>\n
Less the sum of Rs.5,96,657\/- deposited on 04.07.2002 (4th deposit)
\n5,96,657.00<\/p>\n
Balance
\n6,03,115.00
\n7<\/span>
\nInterest of 15% p.a on Rs.17,41,214\/- from 05.07.2002 to 17.09.2009 for 7 years , 2 months and 14 days as per Sec.28
\n18,81,942.25<\/p>\n
Total interest due upto 17.09.2009
\n24,85,057.25<\/p>\n
Total amount due:\n<\/p>\n
Total enhanced compensation to be paid
\n17,41,214.00<\/p>\n
Total interest due on the enhanced compensation upto 17.09.2009
\n24,85,057.25<\/p>\n
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AS ON 17.09.2009
\n42,26,271.25<\/p>\n
           11. However, the first respondent h as filed a memo of Calculation before the Executing Court in  E.P.No. 32 of 2003 and the same is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Enhanced compensation as awarded by
\n  Sub Court, Udumalpet @ Rs.1,74,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
  per acre for 7.20 Acres \t\t\t\t         12,60,000.00\n  Tree Value\t\t\t\t\t\t\t       5,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t----------------\n   Total\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 12,65,000.00\n\n    30% solatium for Rs.12,65,000\/-\t\t\t   3,79,500.00\n   \n    12% Addl.amount date of 4(1) Notification\n    to the date of passing of award i.e. 06.05.86 \n     to 29.02.88, 1 year 9 months and 24 days            2,75,631.40\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t        -----------------\n     Total                                                               19,20,131.40\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t         ----------------\n\t\t\t\t      Land Value     Solatium       12% Addl.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tamount\n                                            -----------------------------------------\ni. Enhanced land value\n    due                             12,65,000.00    3,79,500.00   2,75,631.40\n\nii. Amount already\n    deposited in the Sub\n    Court,Udumalpet on\n    04.09.1988\t\t       1,11,484.55      33,445.35       24,291.40\n\t\t\t\t     -----------------------------------------------\niii.Balance to be paid       11,53,515.45    3,46,054.65   2,51,340.00\n                                      -__________________________________\n\nLand  Value                       11,53,515.45\n\nLess:Amount deposited at\n       Sub Court,\n       Udumalpet on\n       25.01.94                      5,42,172.00\n                                       ----------------\n                                         6,11,343.45\n                                       -____________\n\nLess amount deposited at\nSub Court,Udumalpet\non 06.06.94                          5,42,172.00\n                                       -----------------\n\nBalance amount to be paid     69,171.45\n                                       ------------------   \nInterest Calculations:\n\n1.Interst at 9% p.a to be paid from \n   11.03.88 to 04.09.88 for Rs.12,85,000\/-\n   (178 days)                                                :          55,521.40\n\n2. Interest at 9% from 05.09.88 to\n    10.03.89 for Rs.11,53,515.45\n    (For 107 days)                                          :           53,188.10\n\n2. Interest at 15% p.a from 11.3.89\n    to 25.1.94 for Rs.11,53,515.445\n    (4 years,321 days)                                    :         8,44,278.20\n\n4. Interest from 26.1.94 to 06.06.94\n     for Rs.6,11,343.45 @ 15% p.a.\n    (132 days)\t\t\t\t\t\t :            33,163.60\n\n5.  Interest from 07.06.1994  to \n     25.02.1994 for Rs.69,171.45  \t\t\t :             28,284.30\n                                                                          ------------------\n\t\t\t\t    Total\t\t\t :         10,14,435.60\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t ------------------\n\nBalance amount of enhanced compensation\nto be remitted on 06.06.94                                           69,171.45\n\nInterest to be remitted as on 25.02.97\t\t\t   10,14,435.60\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t-------------------\n Total amount remitted on 25.02.97 at\n  Sub Court, Udumalpet                                            10,84,345.00\n\n\n\n\nLess balance amount of enhanced \ncompensation to be remitted on \n06.06.94 plus interest to be \nremitted                                                       :       10,83,607.05\n\nAmount available at Sub Court,\nUdumalpet as excess\t\t\t\t\t :                737.95\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      -------------------\nSolatium to be paid \t                                              3,46,054.65\n\n12% Addl.\tAmount to be paid\t\t\t\t     2,51,340.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t------------------\n  \t\t\t\t    Total                                   5,97,394.65\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t-------------------\n\nLess amount available at Sub Court,\nUdumalpet\t\t\t\t\t\t\t:                   737.95\n\nBalance to be deposited in the Sub Court,\nUdumalpet                                                  :             5,96,656.70\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t-------------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
The Balance  of Rs.5,96,656.70  was deposited  on 04.07.2002  in the Sub Cout, Ulundurpet<\/p>\n
\t\t12.  In this connection,  Order 21 Rule 21  of Civil Procedure Code speaks of “Modes of paying money under decree” and the same is extracted as under:
\n“R.1.Modes of Paying money under Decree: (1) All money payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through  a bank;  or<\/p>\n
(b) Out of court to the decree holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or<\/p>\n
) Otherwise, as the Court which made the decree directs.\n<\/p>\n
2. Where any payment is made under clause (1) or Clause ) of sub  rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due.
\n(3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub0rule (1), the money order or payment through bank,  as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, name:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) the number of the original suit;\n<\/p>\n
(b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants;\n<\/p>\n
) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs;\n<\/p>\n
(d) the number of the execution case of the Court, whether such case is pending; and\n<\/p>\n
(e) the name and address of the payer.\n<\/p>\n
(4) on any amount paid under clause (a) or clause ) of sub rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease  to run from the date, of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule(2)
\n(5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of Sub-Rule (1) interest, if any shall cease to run from the date of such payment:
\nProvided that, where the decree-holder refused to accept the postal money order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids the acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
             13. As far as the present case is concerned,  the fact remains that the Appeal 1101 of 1993  preferred by the respondents  as appellants  has been dismissed by this Court on 12.07.2001 and Cross Objection No.90 of 1996  filed by the respondents in appeals by Cross Objectors 1 to 8 therein has been allowed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  14. Earlier, an award has been passed in L.A.O.P.No.99 of 1998  by the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet on 14.02.1992   and the appeal in  A.S.No.1101 of 1993  and Cross Objection 90 of 1996  have been disposed of by this Court on 12.07.2001. Inasmuch as  the appeal preferred by the respondents in Civil Revision petition,  as appellants has been dismissed by this Court  on 12.07.2001  and consequently, Cross Objection No.90 of 1996  filed by the Cross Objectors 1 to 8  has been allowed. It is crystal clear that the award passed in L.A.O.P.99 of 1998  dated 14.12.1992  has been modified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          15. It is to be noted that numerous rules of order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code take care of different situations, providing effective remedies not only to judgment-Debtors, decree-holders, but also to claimants\/objectors and in an exceptional case, where provisions are rendered incapable of granting relief in adequate measure and at relevant time, the option is available to file a regular suit before the appropriate civil forum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           16. Also, that the payment made by judgment-debtor  otherwise than in accordance with rule  and without recording of satisfaction under rule 2, the payment has to be  adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions of the Court, if any, and in the absence of such directions adjustment has to be made, subject to an agreement to the contrary between the parties, firstly, towards interests and costs and thereafter towards principal sum etc ., and sections 59<\/a> to 61<\/a> of the Contract Act 1972 do not deal with cases where principal and interest are due under a single debt and in the sections 59<\/a> and 60<\/a> of the Contract Act are applicable not at the post-decretal stage but only applies at pre-decretal stage, in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             17. There is no inconsistency between order 21 Rule 1 proviso of Civil Procedure Code and Sections 28<\/a> and 34<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act as per decision in the Government of Goa and another Vs IVO Angnelo Santimano Fernandes and others reported in 2002 A.I.H.C. 4941.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    18.  It cannot be in dispute that the liability of State to pay interest ceases when the amount of compensation is paid to the claimant or deposited into  Court as per decision in Premnath Kapur and another Vs National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., and others reported in (1996) 2 S.C.C 71 .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  19.  On a careful consideration of respective contentions, and also  taking note of the fact that the Appeal No.1101 of 1993 has been  dismissed by judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2001 and further, that Cross Objection 90 of 1996  has been allowed by this Court and added further, after going through the order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.32 of 2003, this Court is  of  the considered view that the observations made by the Executing Court  that ” there is difference in regard to the amount shown in the memo of calculation and that of the one shown in the petition and therefore, it is dismissed by the Execution petition on the ground that the memo of calculation filed by the Revision petitioners is wrong one”  are not a valid and correct one in the eye of law. Further this Court opines that if the memo of calculation filed by the Revision petitioners is not a correct one, then the Executing Court,  instead of dismissing the Execution petition, ought to have directed the petitioners to file a fresh memo of calculation in regard to the amount due to be paid to the petitioners by the respondents herein or it should have also worked out a memo of calculation by itself by taking the aid of the office through Chief Ministerial Officer viz. Sheristadar But unfortunately, such a procedure has not been resorted to by the Executing Court, and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. But however, on a conspectus of over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present  case, in a cumulative and integrated manner, this court on the basis of Equity, FairPlay and Good Conscience  and as a matter of Prudence,  sets aside the order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No. 32 of 2003  and allows the Civil Revision petition in the interest of justice by means of issuing an appropriate direction to the Executing Court to restore E.P.No.32 of 2003 to its file and to decide the same afresh on merits dispassionately uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this court in this Revision  and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunities to the respective parties to let in oral or documentary evidence as the case may be, if so advised, and if exigency of situation so requires.  The parties are directed to file a fresh memo of calculation as on date on their side and to present before the Court effectively and efficaciously and the Executing Court shall dispose of the Execution Petition No.90 of 1993 by passing a reasoned order on merits  within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             20. With the above observations, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order of the Executing Court in E.P.No.32 of 2003 is set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
pal<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Sub Collector,
\n    rep. by Tahsildar,
\n    Polachi, Udumalpet.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Secretary,
\n    Coimbatore  Marketting
\n    Committee,
\n    Coimbatore<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25 .11.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(NPD).No.1006 of 2006 1. Sarada Rajagopalan 2. Usha Srinivasan 3. Vasantha Ramachandran 4. R.Sunderganapathy 5.Ananda Ramasundar 6. Mathangi narayanamurthi 7. Anupama 8. Yamuna Ganesan … Petitioners\/Petitioners […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-02T08:59:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-02T08:59:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3286,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-02T08:59:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-02T08:59:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-02T08:59:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009"},"wordCount":3286,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009","name":"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-02T08:59:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarada-rajagopalan-vs-the-sub-collector-on-25-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarada Rajagopalan vs The Sub Collector on 25 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260000","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}