Madras High Court
Kamalakanni (Deceased) vs The Managing Director on 7 March, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
1/17 WP No. 24664 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 24664 of 2021
1.Kamalakanni (DECEASED)
2.B.Narayanan
3.K.Rani
4.N.Uma Mageshwari
Petitioner(s)
[P2 to P4 are substituted as LRs of deceased P1, as per order dated 13.02.2025
in WMP No.23211 of 2023 in W.P.No.24664 of 2021.]
Vs
1.The Managing Director
TamilNadu Housing Board,
C.M.D.A.Building campus,
Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107
2.The District Revenue Officer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
CMDA Building Campus
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107
3.The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition – Unit 2
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
CMDA Building Campus
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm ) Respondent(s)
2/17 WP No. 24664 of 2021
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to deposit the
balance compensation amount to the credit of LAOP No.543 of 1987 on the file
of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee pursuant to the Judgment and Decree of the
Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated 13.09.1989 made in LAOP No.543 of
1987 and as per the Judgement and Decree of this Court dated 24.10.2009 made
in A.S.No.751 of 1998 on file of High Court Madras by fixing a time limit.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.S.Subramanian
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jayapal
Standing Counsel for R1
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
Additional Government Pleader
for R2 and R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to deposit the balance compensation amount to the credit of
LAOP No.543 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee pursuant
to the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated
13.09.1989 made in LAOP No.543 of 1987 and as per the Judgement and
Decree of this Court dated 24.10.2009 made in A.S.No.751 of 1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
2.The case of the petitioner is that she was the owner of the subject
property and the property came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act
1894. Thereafter, the award enquiry was conducted and Award was passed in
Award No.20 of 1983 dated 19.10.1983 by fixing the market value as Rs.75/-
per cent. This was received under protest and the matter was referred to the Sub
Court, Poonamalee in L.A.O.P.No.543 of 1987. The Sub Court by Judgment and
Decree dated 13.09.1989 increased the compensation to Rs.1000/- per cent. The
Land Acquisition Officer filed an appeal in A.S.No.751 of 1998 before this
Court. This appeal was partly allowed by Judgment and Decree dated
24.10.2009 whereby, the compensation was reduced and fixed at Rs.760/- per
cent.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not deposit
the balance compensation amount and accordingly, the present writ petition was
filed before this Court.
4.When the matter came up for hearing on 13.02.2025, this Court passed
the following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. The
relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
2. I respectfully submit that the lands
under Nolambur Village was acquired by the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board through an Award No. 20/1983
dated 19.10.1983 by fixing the market value Rs.75/-
for the Purpose of implementing the Ambattur
Neighbourhood Scheme including the petitioner's land
in S.Nos. 41/1 and 43/3 to an extent of 1.24 acres.
Subsequently, award compensation was received by
the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed L.A.O.P.
No. 543 of 1987 before the Land Acquisition Officer,
Sub-court, Poonamallee for enhancement of
compensation. Sub Court in its order dated
13.09.1989 by enhancing the market value as Rs.
1000/- per cent A sum of Rs.2,07,262/ was deposited
on 06.09.1991 by the Land Acquisition Officer. Once
again, a sum of Rs. 92,623/- was deposited by Land
Acquisition officer on 01.09.1993. Totally Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2,99,885/- was( Uploaded
deposited as per01:02:22
on: 14/03/2025 the Court
pm ) order dated
13.09.1989 representing 50% of enhanced
compensation.
3.I humbly submit that aggrieved by the
above said sub Court order dated 13.09.1989, the land
acquisition officer filed A.S.No.751 of 1998 before this
Hon'ble Court. Subsequently, the order dated
24.10.2009 was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Madras. The Land Acquisition Officer was partly
allowed and the market value was reduced to Rs.760/-
from Rs.1000/- The petitioner had filed Execution
petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking for balance
amount to be paid.
2.It is an admitted case that the compensation was fixed at
Rs.1,000/- by the reference Court and it was challenged before
this Court in A.S.No.751 of 1998. When the appeal was
entertained, a direction was issued to deposit 50% and
accordingly 50% was deposited and it was also withdrawn.
Finally, the compensation amount was modified to Rs.760/-
from Rs.1000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the balance
( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
compensation amount has not been fully paid and the interest to
which the petitioner is entitled has also not been paid. There is
no indication even in the counter affidavit as to whether the
balance compensation of Rs.260/- was paid or not.
4.In view of the above, the learned counsel for the
petitioner shall file a memo of calculation giving the exact
figures and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Housing Board Shall also collect the particulars and inform
as how much amount has been deposited in this regard. Based
on the same, final orders will be passed in this writ petition.
5.Post this writ petition on 26.02.2024 under the caption
'for orders'
5.Pursuant to the above order, the writ petition was once again listed on
26.02.2025 and the following order was passed by this Court:
Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, a
memo of calculation has been filed by the petitioners and
according to the petitioners, the balance amount payable is
Rs.8,01,824/-. On the contrary, a calculation memo has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
filed by the Housing Board and according to the Housing Board,
excess amount has been paid to the tune of Rs.9,819/-.
2. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the prima facie
view that the memo of calculation submitted by the petitioners
does not suffer from any error. Apart from that, it is seen in the
counter affidavit that a reference has been made to the letter
dated 11.03.2005, which was issued pursuant to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Prem N.Kapoor's case. This letter will not
have any legs to stand since the subsequent judgments have
overruled the judgment in Prem N.Kapoor's case and this was
taken note of by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.446 of 2017 while passing the order on 19.12.2017 and
the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
"5. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 was since overruled is bad.
6. A careful reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gurupreet 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
hand, the principles which the Supreme Court has declared
in Gurupreet Singh 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 of of
the further 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
Premnath case to the extent the same is at variance with the
decision of the Supreme Court in Gurupreet 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 a fresh
administrative communication in terms of the ratio in
Gurupreet 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. Learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board shall
take instructions in this regard.
Post this writ petition under the same caption on
05.03.2025 along with W.P.No.28133 of 2019.
6.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents produced the written
instructions received from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board along with memo of
calculation. As per the written instructions, the Housing Board has questioned
the calculation memo filed on behalf of the petitioner on the following ground:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
7.After making the above objections, a fresh calculation memo has been
filed on the side of the respondents and the same is scanned and reproduced
hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
8.Heard Mr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Mr.A.M.Ravindranth Jeyapal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
9.It is seen from the calculation memo that there are primarily two
mistakes that have been committed. The first mistake is that 12% additional
market value has been fixed from 19.05.1976 and whereas, the 4(1) notification
is dated 31.12.1975. That apart, while calculating the interest on solatium, it has
been confined from 19.09.2001. On going through the decree passed by the
Reference Court, it is seen that such interest has been granted from the date of
decree. In the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28133 of 2019,
dated 07.03.2025, this Court has clarified that the interest on solatium can be
confined from 19.09.2001 only in those cases where the Trial Court has not
granted any interest on solatium and the Execution Court for the first time grant
such interest and in which case, as per the guidelines issued in Gurpreet Singh
case, it can be granted only from 19.09.2001 ie., from the date on which the
order in Sundar case was passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
10.In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the memo of
calculation that was submitted by the petitioners and which was taken note of
by this Court while passing order on 26.02.2025 is in line with the judgement
of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh case. For proper appreciation, the memo
of calculation is scanned and extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
11.There shall be a direction to the respondents to deposit the sum of
Rs.8,01,824/- to the credit of LAOP No.543 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate
Judge, Poonamallee, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw
the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
12.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above
directions. No Costs.
07-03-2025
(2/2)
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
To
1.The Managing Director
TamilNadu Housing Board,
C.M.D.A.Building Campus,
Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107
2.The District Revenue Officer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
CMDA Building Campus
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107
3.The Special Tahsildar
Land Acquisition – Unit 2
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
CMDA Building Campus
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ssr
07-03-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 01:02:22 pm )
(2/2)
