Land Acquisition Officer/ vs Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3 Mad

                                                         C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

                 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                        Dated : 03.01.2022

                                            CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                              C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019
                                             and
                       C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8280, 8282, 10472 and 10475 of 2019


       1.Land Acquisition Officer/
         Revenue Divisional Officer,
         Palani.

       2.The Chief Engineer,
         Public Works Department,
         Pollachi Region,
         Coimbatore.

       3.The Superintendent Engineer,
         Public Works Department,
         Palani.

       4.The Executive Engineer,
         Public Works Department,
         Nanganchiyar Water Resource,
         Basin Division, Palani.                        .. Petitioners in both C.R.Ps.

                                               Vs.

       1.Narendra Dairy Farms (P) Ltd.,
         Represented by its Director,
         V.Duraisinga Lakshmana Naicker,
         (Demised)

       2.D.Rajesh

            3.D.Satheesh Kumar
            4.R.Jegadeesh Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                        .. Respondents in both C.R.Ps.

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

Prayer : These Civil revision petitions are filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order in E.P.Nos.72 and 73 of 2018 in L.A.O.P.Nos. 7 and 6 of 1996 respectively, dated 26.07.2019, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track), Palani.

For Petitioners (in both C.R.Ps.) : Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan Spl. Govt. Pleader

For 2nd Respondent (in both C.R.Ps.) : Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy

For 4th Respondent (in both C.R.Ps.) : Mr.B.Saravanan

COMMON ORDER

As the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the

same, a common order is being pronounced.

2.The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palani in E.P.Nos.72 and 73 of 2018

in LAOP.Nos.7 and 6 of 1996 dated 26.07.2019.

3.The brief facts, which precedes the filing of the above Civil Revision

Petitions are as follows:-

An extent of 102.51.0 hectares of land in Balasamudram Village and

further extent of 63.83.5 hectares of the land in Pudachu Village at Palani Taluk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

were acquired for the construction of Palani-Porunthalaru Dam. A notification under

Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to Act) was

originally issued on 19.01.1972 and possession of the lands was also taken on

01.03.1972. Thereafter, the petitioners had allowed the earlier notification dated

19.01.1972 to lapse. After nearly 18 years, another notification under Section 4 (1) of

the Act was issued on 11.09.1990 and ultimately, the Land Acquisition Officer had

passed an award on 10.02.1993, determining the compensation at Rs.6,881/- per

acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the respondents sought for

reference under Section 18 of the Act and the reference was numbered as LAOP.Nos.

6 and 7 of 1996 of the Act.

4.The learned Subordinate Judge, Palani determined the compensation for

the land at Rs.15,000/- per acre and aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners

herein had filed A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001. The respondents herein have also

filed cross appeals seeking enhancement at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre.

5.By a common judgment dated 17.03.2003, the Division Bench of this

Court was pleased to enhance the compensation to a sum of Rs.28,000/- per acre

together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation as per

Section 23 (1A) of the Act and solatium at 30% for the said compensation. The

interest was fixed at the rate specified under Section 34 of the Act as awarded by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

Court below in respect of all the three components following the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR

2001 SC 3516. Thereafter, the petitioners herein had filed Review Application Nos.

78 to 81 of 2004 on the ground that Ex.A3, which was relied upon by the Division

Bench of this Court for arriving at the market value, related only to Punja land,

which was not comparable for the acquisition, which was for the construction of

Dam. That apart, the petitioners had once again questioned the award of the

additional amount of 12% under Section 23 (1A) of the Act on the ground that the

point, for which the additional amount of 12% has to be concluded, had to be fixed.

Thereafter, the respondents herein had filed execution proceeding, since the

petitioners herein had failed to pay the compensation amount. By order dated

27.09.2018, the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Palani, was

pleased to allow E.P.No.72 of 2018 as follows:-

                            "Kbthf ,e;j        epiwNtw;Wif kD mDkjpf;fg;gl;L
                    kDjhuu;fs;    ,e;j         epiwNtw;W   kDtpy; NfhhpAs;s

&.11>17>67>767.00/-iaAk; Nkw;gb njhiff;F 04.06.2015 Kjy; 15% gpd;tl;bAk; gpd; nryTk; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; nrYj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpLfpwJ. ,k;kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epyq;fs; 01.03.1972 Kjy; murhy; Mh;[pjk; nra;ag;gl;L mjw;Fupa ,og;gPl;L njhifia ngWtjw;F 45 Mz;LfSf;F Nky; Mtjhy;

vjph;kDjhuh;fs; Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l ,og;gPl;L njhifia xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;W KbT nra;ag;gLfpwJ."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

6.E.P.No.73 of 2018 was allowed as follows:-

                             "Kbthf ,e;j             epiwNtw;Wif kD mDkjpf;fg;gl;L
                     kDjhuu;fs;    ,e;j              epiwNtw;W   kDtpy; NfhhpAs;s

&.17>96>21>153.00/-iaAk; Nkw;gb njhiff;F 04.06.2015 Kjy; 15% gpd;tl;bAk; gpd; nryTk; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; nrYj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; ,e;j ePjpkd;wk; cj;jutpLfpwJ. ,k;kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epyq;fs; 01.03.1972 Kjy; murhy; Mh;[pjk; nra;ag;gl;L mjw;Fupa ,og;gPl;L njhifia ngWtjw;F 45 Mz;LfSf;F Nky; Mtjhy;

vjph;kDjhuh;fs; Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l ,og;gPl;L njhifia xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;W KbT nra;ag;gLfpwJ."

7.The Court below had upheld the calculation that had been submitted by

the respondents herein. Challenging these orders, the respondents herein had filed

C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2375 and 2376 of 2018 on the file of this Court. By order dated

03.01.2019, this Court was pleased to pass the following order.

“As already stated, this issue had been settled by order dated 21.10.2009 by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the clarificatory petitions filed by the land owners. The same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Compensation payable to the land owners will be in two parts. The second notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11.09.1990. Therefore, they will be entitled to al the statutory benefits payable to them in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 17.03.2003 in A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001 and Cross Objection Nos.14 and 15 of 2003. On the compensation fixed at Rs.28,000/- per acre for the period of dispossession from 01.03.1972 till 10.09.1990, they would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as damages. This amount represents the compensation payable to the land owners. Therefore, the Revision petitioners are entitled to appropriate the payments made by them against this amount, once the interest component is satisfied. The executing Court failed to take note of this. Therefore, the orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the executing Court and both the parties will file revised calculation memo in terms of this order.”

8.After remand, the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),

Palani, was pleased to pass orders in both the execution petitions on 26.07.2019. As

regards E.P.No.72 of 2018, the learned Judge has passed the following orders:-

“Kbthf. ,e;j epiwNtw;Wif kD mDkjpf;fg;gl;L kDjhuu;fSf;F &.10>85>93>520/-k; kw;Wk; kDjhuu;fSf;F fzf;fPl;L jhspy; fyk; 4y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s nkhj;j ,og;gPl;L njhif &.1>87>49>016/- f;F rl;l gpupT 34d;gb 01.07.2019 Kjy; gpd;tl;b kw;Wk; gpd; nryTld; vjpu;kDjhuu;fs; nrYj;j Ntz;Lnkd cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. ,k;kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epyq;fs; 01.03.1973 Kjy; murhy; Mu;[pjk; nra;ag;gl;L> mjw;Fupa ,og;gPl;L njhifia ngWtjw;F 45 Mz;LfSf;F Nky; Mtjhy; vjpu;kDjhuu;fs; Nkw;gb Fwpg;gpl;l ,og;gPL njhifia xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.”

9.As regards, E.P.No.73 of 2018, the following order was passed:-

“2.kDjhuu;fSf;F &.17>43>81>170/-k; kw;Wk; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

kDjhuu;fSf;F fzf;fPl;L jhspy; fyk; 4y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s nkhj;j ,og;gPl;L njhif &.3>01>08>008/-f;F rl;l gpupT 34d;gb 01.07.2019 Kjy; gpd;tl;b kw;Wk; gpd; nryTld; vjpu;kDjhuu;fs; nrYj;j Ntz;Lnkd cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

3.,k;kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epyq;fs; 01.03.1973 Kjy; murhy; Mu;[pjk; nra;ag;gl;L> mjw;Fupa ,og;gPl;L njhifia ngWtjw;F 45 Mz;LfSf;F Nky; Mtjhy; vjpu;kDjhuu;fs;

Nkw;gb Fwpg;gpl;l ,og;gPL njhifia xU khj fhyj;jpw;F ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL nra;a Ntz;Lnkd;W cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.”

10.Challenging these orders, the petitioners are before this Court. The

main ground of challenge was on the ground that the interest of 9% as damages on

the compensation would indicate that the interest could only be calculated on the

market value and other components cannot be added to the market value.

11.Mr.N.Muthuvijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the petitioners would vehemently contend that reading of the orders passed

by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly indicate that compensation was

only a sum of Rs.28,000/- per acre and did not include the additional compensation

and solatium. Therefore, the order of the Executing Court accepting the calculation

filed by the respondents herein was totally erroneous. The respondents had added the

additional compensation as well as solatium to the market value and on this

consolidated amount, they had calculated the damages at 9% per annum. This https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

according to the learned Special Government Pleader was totally erroneous and not

in line with the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He would

therefore submit that the orders of the Executing Court have to necessarily be set

aside.

12.Per contra, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th

respondent would submit that the calculation submitted by the petitioners was only

in keeping with Section 23 of the Act as explicated in the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Sundar Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 7

Supreme Court Cases, which has been followed by another Bench of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2006)

8 Supreme Court Cases 457. He would therefore submit that there was no reason to

interfere with the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palani.

13.While arguments were advanced in the above matters,

Mr.S.T.S.R.Venkataramanan, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this

Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tirunelveli Vs. V.Sivasubramanian and others reported in (2006) 5 CTC 23,

wherein, the Division Bench of this Court had explained the differences between the

interest awarded under Section 34 of the Act and the interest awarded under Section

28 of the Act and had held that the interest awarded under Section 34 of the Act is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

punitive in nature. In fact, the entire bone of contention in the present execution

petitions only rests on this interest, which is awarded under Clause 4 of the Judgment

in A.S.Nos.132 and 133 of 2001.

14.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.

15.The crux of the dispute centers around what would constitute the

compensation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the compensation

is only for a sum of Rs.28,000/- as the Division Bench has clearly held that the

petitioners were entitled to compensation of Rs.28,000/-. Further, Clauses 2 and 3 of

the judgment would also, according to the learned Special Government Pleader,

prove that the additional compensation as well as the solatium were to be calculated

only on the compensation as provided under Clause (i) of the judgment. At first

blush, this argument appears to be plausible. However, a perusal of Section 23 of the

Act would dispel this argument. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, reads

as follows:-

“Section 23:- Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector:-

On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any_ which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 21, to the measurements made under Section 20, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification, and into the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement, shall make an award under his hand of -

(a)the true area of the land ;

(b)the compensation as determined under Section 27 along with rehabilitation and resettlement award as determined under Secton 31 and which in his opinion should be allowed for the land ; and

(c)the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.”

16.Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deals with the amount of

compensation that is payable. The 1st component relates to the market value of the

land, under which care has been taken to include the compensation for the standing

crops and trees, the damage sustained by the person by the reason of a portion of his

land being taken possession of, the damages for any injury that would be effected to

the property both movable or immovable by reason of the possession being taken

over, the expenses incidental to the person being compelled to change the residence

or place of business on account of acquisition and for the damage if any, the person

would suffer on account of the diminution of the profits of the land from the date of

publication of declaration till taking of actual possession.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

17.All the above factors had to be taken note of while arriving at the

market value of the land. In addition to the market value, Section 23 (1A) of the Act

provides the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.12% per annum on the market

value from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the

Act to the date of the award of the District Collector or the date of taking possession

whichever is earlier and also solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value. All the

three components put together constitute the compensation that was payable to the

owner of the land.

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundar Vs. Union of India

reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516, has clearly held that the compensation awarded

includes not only the total sum arrived at as per sub Section 1 of Section 23 of the

Act but also includes the amount payable under the remaining sub Sections thereof.

This according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court constituted the expression awarded

amount. It is to this award amount that the compensation contemplated under Section

34 was payable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as

follows:-

“23. ......... We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub- section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that "if such compensation" is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted.

19.This judgment has been followed in the subsequent judgment reported

in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India). In

paragraph No.38 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Judges have reiterated what

constituted the amount on which the interest under Section 34 of the Act was to be

calculated as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

“38.This shows that there is no distinction made between land value and solatium on the one hand and the interest awardable on the other, under Section 23(1A) of the Act. It is on this sum that the interest under Section 34 of the Act is awarded and if it were a reference, awarded under Section 28 of the Act, in addition to costs, if any. Thus, the award by the Collector and the deemed decree passed on reference contain the components of compensation and interest in the first and interest and costs in the second.”

20.In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, it is crystal clear that

the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Palani,

is well within the parameters laid down in the judgment supra. Therefore, the order

allowing the execution petitions stands confirmed. The calculation memo submitted

by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall form part of this order.

21.In the result, the above Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

03.01.2022 mm/abr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

P.T.ASHA, J.

mm/abr

To

1.Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani.

2.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pollachi Region, Coimbatore.

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Palani.

4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nanganchiyar Water Resource, Basin Division, Palani.

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1563 and 1564 of 2019

03.01.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis