Madras High Court

Mahudeeswari vs The Special Thasildhar [Land ... on 20 January, 2025

Author: N. Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                          CRP NPD.No.3420 of 2023

                                   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 Date : 20.01.2025

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                             CRP NPD No.3420 of 2023

                   Nachammal [died]
                   Palanisamy Gounder [died]
                   1. Mahudeeswari
                   2. Katheresan
                   3. Kirupashini
                   4. Thirumalaisamy                                    . . . Petitioners

                                                  Versus

                   1. The Special Thasildhar [Land Acquisition],
                      Neighbour Hoor Scheme,
                      Dharapuram [Now], formerly Land Acquisition Thasildhar,
                     The Special Thasildhar [Land Acquisition],

                   2. The Superintending Engineer, [Housing Board],
                      Erode [Now Formerly],
                      Executive Engineer, Housing Board Scheme,
                      Erode, Periyar Nagar, Erode Town, Erode.

                   3. Ravichandran
                   4. Chellammal
                   5. Saraswathi
                   6. Gandhimathi

                   Page 1 / 10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     CRP NPD.No.3420 of 2023

                   7. Ponnusamy                                                     . . . Respondents


                   PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to set
                   aside the Order dated 14.03.2023 in E.P.No.48 of 2003 in LAOP.No.11 of
                   1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram.


                                   For petitioners      : Mr.K.Sudhakar


                                   For respondents      : Mr.D.Gopal
                                                          Government Advocate – R1

                                                         Mr.C.Kalaichelvan – R2

                                                         Mr.J.Pradeep – R3 to R7


                                                        ORDER

Challenging the Order of the Execution Court dismissing the Execution

Petition, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision is as follows :

The notification for acquiring the property of the petitioner has been

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

issued under section 41[1] of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.08.1982

followed by notice under section 9[1] of the Land Acquisition Act on

17.12.1986 and award has been passed on 20.08.1987 for acquiring 4 acre and

55 cents and compensation of Rs.4629/63 per acre has been fixed by the

Special Tahsildar. Reference was made to the Court under section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act. The Tribunal by an Order dated 27.08.1993, fixed the

compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent in L.O.P.No.11 of 1991.

Challenging the said Order, an appeal has been filed by the State in

A.S.No.917 of 1994 and Cross objection No.86 of 2001 has also been filed by

the petitioner. While dismissing the appeal, this Court has allowed the cross

objections and enhanced the compensation from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per

cent and also held that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium only for

the market value of the land acquired in addition to this additional amount at

the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4[1] satisfaction till the date of

passing of the award or delivery or possession, which ever is earlier. It is also

made clear that 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

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

of 15% per anuum till the date of deposit. Further the issue regarding grant of

interest, this Court had held that solatium is pending before the larger bench of

the Supreme Court, hence, depending on the outcome of the case before the

Supreme Court, the claimants are permitted to file appropriate petition before

the concerned Subordinate Court. Therefore, they had filed an execution

petition taking note of the authoritative pronouncement made by the

Constitution Bench judgment in Sunder Vs. Union of India in Case in

Appeal [Civil] 6271 of 1998, dated 19.09.2001. However, the Execution

Court has dismissed the Execution petition on the ground that the appellate

Court has not granted any interest on solatium and additional amount.

Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents

would submit that on the date of udgment in Sundar case cited supra, entire

amount has already been deposited. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to

any interest.

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

4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the Execution Court has misrepresented the Order of the appellate

Court. Infact, the appellate Court has permitted the petitioners to approach the

Subordinate Court for claiming interest on the solatium and additional amount

subject to the outcome of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. Now the

Constitution Bench in Sundar case cited supra has answered the reference

and held that the solatium provided under section 23[2] of the Land

Acquisition Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation

awarded to a land owner and then interest is also payable on the compensation

awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Hence, submitted

that the Order of the Execution Court has to be set aside.

5. Heard both sides and perused entire materials available on record.

6. The Execution Petition has been dismissed mainly on the ground that

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

the appellate Court has not provided any interest. It is relevant to note that the

appellate Court while enhancing the compensation from Rs.3000/- to

Rs.4000/- per cent has passed the following Order :

“It is further made clear that the claimants are not 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 Honourble Supreme Court. Hence, depending on the

outcome of the case before the Supreme Court, the claimants are

permitted to the appropriate petition before the concerned sub-

court.”

The above Order makes it clear that the appellate Court has not rejected the

claim of interest or additional amount and it has postponed the interest subject

to the outcome of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme

Court. Now the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sundar case

cited supra has held that the interest is also payable on solatium. The

appellate Court has permitted the revision petitioner to file an appropriate petition

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

before the Sub Court on the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court. It is

also relevant to note that the other Constitution Bench in the judgment in

Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India in Case No.Appeal [Civil] No.4570 of

2006 has held as follows :

“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 merely 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

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

the judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any

prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-

appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder.

This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise

of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution

of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this

question.”