Madras High Court
Sekar vs Tmt. B. Priyanka Pankajam on 7 January, 2022
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Cont. P. No. 1323 of 2019
in
W.P. No. 31737 of 2018
1. Sekar,
S/o. Ramer
2. Muniraji,
S/o. Govindasamy
3. Murugesan,
S/o. P.Kumarasamy
4. Unnamalai,
W/o. Subramani
5. Anandan,
S/o. Lakshamana Goundar
6. A. Anandan,
S/o. Arumugam ... Petitioners
Versus
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
1. Tmt. B. Priyanka Pankajam, I.A.S.,
The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition),
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirupattur, Vellore Dt.
2. Dr. Atulya Misra, I.A.S.,
The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of Contempt
of Court Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for having disobey the
order of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.31737 of 2018 dated
07.01.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.S.Kohandaraman
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran,
Special Govt. Pleader
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging that the order passed
by this Court dated 23.04.2021 in W.P.No.9214 of 2021 has not been
complied with.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier, the petitioners' lands
were acquired and the award was passed. Not being satisfied with the
award, the petitioners have sought reference under Sec.18 of Land
Acquisition Act and the Reference Court has awarded only Rs.1.50/- per
sq.ft. Challenging the order passed by the Reference Court, the petitioners
have filed appeals in A.S.Nos.402, 564 to 568 of 2010 before this Court and
this Court by a judgment and decree dated 20.09.2017 enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.5.60/- per sq.ft. Thereafter, the award amount
was not paid to the petitioners. Hence, they have filed a Writ Petition
seeking a direction directing the respondent to pay compensation as per the
Land Acquisition Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
3. This Court by an order dated 07.01.2019 disposed of the Writ
Petition directing the 5th respondent to pay entire compensation payable to
the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
order. According to the petitioners, even though the respondents have paid
the compensation in accordance with law, they failed to pay interest on
solatium and the calculation done by the respondent was also not in
accordance with the provisions under Land Acquisition Act. Hence, this
Court directed the petitioners to file calculation before the respondents and
the respondents are directed to verify the same and posted the matter today.
4. Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, Mr.J.Ravindran,
learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for respondents submitted that,
the petitioners' representation was considered by the 5th respondent Special
Tahsildar and the order has been passed on 04.01.2022. The copy of the
same was also communicated to the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
5. Mr. P.S.Kothandaraman, learned counsel appearing for petitioners
would submit that in pursuant to the order passed by the 5th respondent is
not in accordance with law. As per the dictum laid down by the constitution
bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, reported
in 2001 (7) SCC 2011, the petitioners are entitled to get interest on solatium,
but the authority refused to grant interest relying upon the G.O., which is
not maintainable.
6. Considering the fact that award amount has been deposited and the
dispute, whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium or not,
which cannot be decided in the Contempt Petition. Therefore, this Court
satisfied that the order passed by this court has been complied with, and no
further adjudication is required. However, if the petitioners have any
grievance over the order passed by the 5th respondent, it is always open to
them to challenge the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, this
Contempt Petition stands closed.
07.01.2022
rpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
To
1. Tmt. B. Priyanka Pankajam, I.A.S.,
The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition),
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirupattur, Vellore Dt.
2. Dr. Atulya Misra, I.A.S.,
The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort,
Chennai-600 009.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P. No.1323 of 2019
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rpp
Cont. P. No.1323 of 2019
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
