Madras High Court
A.Dhanasgopal vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 7 March, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:684
1/15 WP No. 28133 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 28133 of 2019
and WMP Nos. 27780 & 27781 of 2019
1. A.Dhanasgopal
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005
3.The Member Secretary, Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
4.The Special Tahsildar
Land Acqusition, Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
2/15 WP No. 28133 of 2019
5.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
6.The District Revenue officer,
Land Acqusiton, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board Schemes, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st
Respondent pertaining to 1.G.O.MS No.683, Revenue Department dated
21.07.1997, 2. G.O.MS No.401, Revenue and Disaster Management (LA-1) (1)
Department dated 12.10.18 and 3.Letter No.558 (LA1(1) 05-2 dated 11.3.2005
quashing the same and consequentially direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to give
necessary directions to the District Collectors/District Revenue officers/Land
Acquisition officers to apply the Principles declared by the Hon'ble supreme
Court of India reported in 2006 8 Supreme court Cases, Page 457 (Gurpreet
Singh- vs Union of India) in respect of the compensation payable to the Land
Wwners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894).
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.S.Subramanian
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1, R2, R4 and R6
Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal
for R6
Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan
Standing Counsel for R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
3/15 WP No. 28133 of 2019
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.683, dated
21.07.1997, G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 12.10.2018 and Letter No.558(LAI(1) 05-02
dated 11.03.2005 and for a consequential direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents
to give necessary directions to the District Collectors/District Revenue
Officers/Land Acquisition Officers to apply the principles declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in 2006 8
SCC 457 in respect of the compensation payable to the land owners under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2.The issue that is involved in the present writ petition was already dealt
with by Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee (as he then was) in W.P.No.446 of
2017 in Hemavathy and others vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department and others, dated 19.12.2017. The relevant portions are extracted
hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
3. In this petition, the learned counsel alleged that the
ratio in PremNath Kapoor case decided by a Bench of three
Judges of the Supreme Court and referred to and relied on by the
first respondent in the correspondence now impugned in these
proceedings has since been overruled by a Constitutional Bench
of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurupreet Singh vs. Union of
India [(2006) 8 SCC 457]. Hence, this aforesaid correspondence
of the first respondent is no more valid and is contrary to the
principles governing the and d the Land Acquisition Authorities
were wrong in following the direction given in the impugned
correspondence.
4. Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, the learned Government Advocate
entered appearance for filed by them. the respondents and no
counter affidavit has filed by them.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
even as on 06.11.2009, when the First Appeal was disposed of by
this Court the principles laid down in the authority in Gurupreet
Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457] has come to have
force and hence, the calculation of interest by the authorities on
the basis of the law (that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was since overruled is bad.
Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
6.A careful reading of the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Fourt in Gurpreet Singh case does indicate that it
actually overturns the entire ratio in Premnath case, though
there is Limited overruling. In the context of case at hand, the
principles which the Supreme Court has declared in
Gurpreetingh case are:
● Where a part payment of compensation was received, the
decree-holder/the erstwhile owner of the land can first
adjust it against the interest, then the cost and then the
principal amount payable out of it.
● Where this appropriation has been done once, later when the
balance amount is paid, the appropriation earlier made
cannot be reopened and the entire transaction cannot be
reworked by recalculating the interest payable on the
whole and Fresh appropriation towards interest, cost and
principal based thereon cannot be done.
● In cases when part of the amount awarded by the Reference
Court or by the appellate Court is deposited pursuant to
an interim order of the appellate Court or of the further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
appellate court and the awardee withdraws the same, and
subject to the fact that such appeal is decided in his
favour,
● the decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the
amount already received by him pursuant to the
interim order first towards interest, then towards
costs and the balance towards principal as on date of
the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on
the balance amount of enhanced compensation.
● However, on the part amount already appropriated
towards principal, the interest would cease from the
date on which the amount is received by the awardee.
● If however, the Court, passes the interim order enabling
withdrawal of part amount has indicated the mode of
appropriation then that would prevail.
7. It is therefore evident that whatever direction was given
under the letter dated 11.03.2005 of the first respondent directing
the sixth respondent to calculate the interest in terms of the
principles initiated in the case of Premnath case to the extent, the
same is at variance( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis with the decision
on: 14/03/2025 of pm
01:02:23 the) Supreme Court in
Gurpreet Singh case [(2006) 8 SCC 457] cannot be sustained.
8. It should not forgotten that what is now impugned is
only an administrative letter and not any Executive Order and it
need not be even set at naught. In stead it is sufficient to direct
the first respondent to issue fresh administrative communication
in terms of the ratio in Gurpreet Singh case. However, this is
optional, since when law is declared by the Supreme Court
nothing contrary to what is so declared can have force.
3.G.O.Ms.No.683 dated 21.07.1997 was issued pursuant to the judgement
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Nath Kapoor and another vs. National
Fertilizers Corporation of India and others reported in 1996 2 SCC 71. The
ratio in Prem Nath Kapoor case was subsequently over ruled by the
Constitution Bench in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in
2006 8 SCC 457. In view of the same, G.O.Ms.No.683, dated 21.07.1997 will be
no longer valid. For the very same reason, the letter dated 11.03.2005 issued by
the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department must also be held to be bad
since such letter was given relying upon the Judgement of the Apex Court in
Prem Nath Kapoor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
4.The subsequent Government Order in G.OMs.No.401 dated 12.10.2018
took note of the judgment in the case of Sundar vs. Union of India reported in
AIR 2001 SCC 3516. The following direction was issued at Paragraph No.6 of
the Government Order:
6. The Government, after careful examination hereby issue
the following clarifications to the orders issued in the GO and
letter second and third read above;--
"In all land acquisition cases, a person entitled to the
compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), on or after
19.9.2001 is also entitled to get interest on the
aggregate amount including additional market value
and Solatium awarded, only with effect from
19.09.2001 as per the orders of Supreme Court of
India in its judgement dated 30.09.2010 in Civil
Appeal No. 1760-1761 of 2004. Regarding interest for
the period prior to 19.09.2001, the procedures then in
force on 18.09.2001, i.c., the claimants in the land
acquisition cases are not entitled for payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis interest on the( Uploaded
30% on:solatium, and pm12%
14/03/2025 01:02:23 ) additional
amount awarded under section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)
shall be followed".
5.The above direction that was issued in Paragraph No.6 is not sustainable
for the simple reason that the same is not in line with the judgement in Gurpreet
Singh case which also clarified the position with respect to applying the ratio in
Sundar case. For proper appreciation, Paragraph No.54 of the judgement in
Gurpreet Singh case is extracted hereunder:
54. One other question also was sought to be raised and
answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering
that the question arises in various cases pending in Courts all
over the country, we permitted counsel to address us on that
question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in
Sunder (supra), the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to
claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not
specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an
execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has
been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by
the judgment or decree of the reference court or of the appellate
court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the
claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder (supra) on the
ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis way of
( Uploaded clarification
on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 also
pm ) 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.
6.The above clarification given by the Apex Court makes it clear that
wherever the interest on solatium has not been awarded in the decree,
considering the ratio in Sundar case, such interest on solatium, can be claimed
from the date of the judgement in Sundar case ie., from 19.09.2001. This is in
view of the fact that the Execution Court cannot go behind the decree and grant
the interest on solatium from the date of decree. However, this principle cannot
be applied where the decree has been granted by including interest on solatium.
In such cases, the interest will have to be necessarily calculated as provided in
the decree and it cannot be restricted from 19.09.2001.
7.In the light of the above discussion, if Paragraph No.6 of
G.O.Ms.No.401 dated 12.10.2018 is considered, it is seen that the Government
has issued a clarification as if in all cases where interest on solatium is paid, it
can be paid only from 19.09.2001. This direction issued by the Government is
due to the wrong understanding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the judgement of the Apex Court in Gurpreet
( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
Singh case. Hence, such directions issued in G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 12.10.2018
is also not valid and the payment of interest on solatium will be squarely
governed by Paragraph No.54 of the Gurpreet Singh case. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court made it clear that where such interest on solatium has not been
awarded by the Trial Court, the Execution Court can award such interest on
solatium only from the date of judgement in Sundar case i.e, from 19.09.2001
and not for any prior period. However, if the interest on solatium has been
awarded even as per the decree, then the interest cannot be restricted from
19.09.2001. Since if it is done, the Execution Court will be going behind the
decree. In such cases, the interest on solatium will be payable from the date of
decree.
st
8.In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the 1
respondent to issue a fresh Government Order taking note of the observations
made in this order and give the necessary clarification to the District
Collectors/District Revenue Officers/Land Acquisition Officers to apply the
principles in Gurpreet Singh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis v. Union
( Uploaded of India
on: 14/03/2025 reported
01:02:23 pm ) in 2006 8 SCC 457 in
respect of the compensation payable to the land owners under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government Order shall be issued, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above directions.
No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07-03-2025
(1/2)
Index:Yes
Speaking
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005
3.The Member Secretary, Chennai
Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
4.The Special Tahsildar
Land Acqusition, Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008
5.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
6.The District Revenue officer,
Land Acqusiton, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ssr
and WMP Nos. 27780 & 27781 of 2019
07-03-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:23 pm ) (1/2)
