Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11078 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2021
W.A.No.22 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.22 of 2021
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Deputy Director,
Agriculture Department, Krishnagiri.
3.The Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District. ..Appellants
Vs
A.B.Jayaraman ..Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 13.08.2019 made in W.P.No.4561 of 2009.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Kadhirvelu
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against
the order of the learned Single Judge, who while taking note of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.22 of 2021
recommendation made by the third appellant, directed the
appellants to pay compensation of Rs.35,500/- with interest at the
rate of 12% from the date i.e., 12.01.2007 by way of damages.
2. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants submitted that an application has been made belatedly
and the recommendation of the third appellant is not binding on the
other appellants.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the fact remains that on inspection, recommendation
was made and not for all other cases, which was accordingly
accepted.
4. The impugned order was set aside by the learned Single
Judge on two grounds, namely, (i) the delay cannot be put against
the respondent and (ii) there was recommendation made by the
third appellant. While we agree with the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge with respect to the delay being the reasoning of non-
suiting the relief sought for and the involvement in the
recommendation, we do find that awarding of 12% interest cannot
be sustained. This is for the reason that the respondent did make an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.22 of 2021
application belatedly and in any case, there is no basis for awarding
12% interest. There is no dispute with respect to primary facts,
namely, the respondent was a farmer and the recommendation was
made by the third appellant after spot inspection.
5. In such view of the matter, while confirming the order
of the learned Single Judge with respect to the quantum of
compensation liable to be paid, the amount of interest payable per
annum from 12.01.2007 till actual payment is reduced from 12% to
7.5%.
6. In view of the above, the appeal stands ordered
accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.328 of
2021 is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
29.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.22 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and R.N.MANJULA,J.
(ssm)
W.A.No.22 of 2021
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!