The Special Deputy Collector / ... vs Vangala Ram Reddy,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2864 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

               APPEAL SUIT Nos.8 & 31 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:


      These Appeal Suits are filed against the Common

Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2001 in O.S.Nos.1 & 2 of

2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.



2.    The differential amount of compensations was claimed by

the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2000 against the

appellants/defendants to an extent of Rs.4,87,037.76 ps and

Rs.1,89,813.80 ps respectively with interest @ 12% per annum

from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs. The

trial Court after considering the arguments and evidence on

both sides decreed the suits. Aggrieved by the said common

Judgment, defendants therein preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants

mainly contended that the trial Court was not exercising

jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to

award the benefits due to the respondents/plaintiffs. The suits

filed for recovery of differential compensation amount under the

Award proceedings No.B/757/89, dated 23.06.1994, are not

maintainable under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and

it has no jurisdiction to grant the benefits. The trial Court failed

to consider the scope of the Order dated 29.10.1997 in

W.P.No.18364 of 1997. The operative portion of the said writ

petition reads as follows:

"a) The claim of the petitioners for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act is hereby rejected.

b) The respondent authorities shall pay compensation to the petitioners as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 4(1) of the L.A.Act, 1894, as on 19.07.1992. Time for payment of the difference in compensation is granted by six months from the date hereof."

As per the Order of the writ petition, respondents/plaintiffs are

entitled only to the differential compensation by taking into

consideration of the market value fixed as on the date of

publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act i.e., 19.07.1992 (hereinafter referred to as

'L.A.Act'). As per the said Order, Land Acquisition Officer was

required to pay the differential compensation by taking into

account of the compensation as determined by him under the

L.A.Act, 1894 i.e., Rs.46,000 per acre minus Rs.400/- per acre.

The respondents/plaintiffs were paid differential compensation

with solatium and interest @ 4%, 9% and 15%. There was no

direction in the writ petition to pay solatium, interest or interest

on solatium. With the payment of difference in compensation,

the order in the writ petition stood complied with.

Respondents/plaintiffs received solatium and interest, it was

addition to the amount to which they were entitled under the

writ petition. Respondents/plaintiffs are claiming interest @ 9%

and 15% and interest on solatium on the ground that Land

Acquisition Officer calculated the compensation wrongly and it

was beyond the scope of the writ petition. As the claim for

reference under Section 18 was rejected, they cannot file suits

claiming benefits that can be adjudicated under Section 18 of

the L.A Act. The Court erred in holding that deduction of Income

Tax at source is erroneous. Therefore, requested the Court to

set aside the Common Judgment of the trial Court.

4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire

Judgment of the trial Court.

5. Appellants contended that as per Section 34 of the L.A

Act, suit itself is not maintainable, but said plea was not raised

in the written statement at the earliest point of time and they

have not requested the Court to frame the issue of jurisdiction

as a preliminary issue and even in the Judgment, jurisdiction

issue was never decided as it was not raised by the appellants

herein. They mainly contended that trial Court cannot decide

the suit beyond the scope of the Order dated 29.10.1997 in

W.P.No.18364 of 1997. In the said writ petition, the reference

under Section 18 was rejected and authorities are directed to

determine the market value under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act,

1894 as on 19.07.1992 and to pay the amount within six

months, but it was not complied, as such respondents/plaintiffs

filed contempt petition No.1221 of 1998 before the Hon'ble High

Court and the Government has issued an Order dated

22.10.1998 to comply with the Order of the High Court.

6. The compensation as contemplated under the provisions

of Nagarjuna Sagar Project Act (hereinafter referred to as

'N.S.P.Act') at Rs.400/- together with solatium at 30% interest

at 4%, 9% and 15% were paid and award was also passed on

29.10.1997. The said point regarding the interest on solatium is

not entitled is also raised before the trial Court, basing on the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.11398 &

11399 of 1995 dated 29.11.1995. Appellants herein mentioned

in the Order of the High Court, regarding the issue of interest on

solatium, both the suits in O.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2000 were clubbed

as both the suits arose out of single award and defendants in

both the suits were one and the same and the evidence recorded

in O.S.No.2 of 2000 shall also be treated as evidence in

O.S.No.1 of 2000.

7. The trial Court got examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to

A17 on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Deputy Tahsildar was

examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2 on behalf of the

defendants.

8. R.W.1 in his evidence stated that they have already

complied the Orders of the High Court and paid compensation

to the respondents/plaintiffs, as such they are not entitled for

interest on solatium and refund of income tax as prayed for in

the plaint. He also filed a memo of calculations containing four

sheets for reference which was marked under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2

was the attested true copy of the award.

9. The trial Court observed that initially the Land

Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.400/- per acre

under the provisions of N.S.P Act and also fixed the market

value at Rs.46,000/- per acre under the provisions of Land

Acquisition Act. When he has chosen to pay compensation at

Rs.400/- per acre, he has also paid statutory benefits like

solatium at 30% on the market value of Rs.400/- per acre with

interest at 4%, 9% and 15% on the market value at three

different periods as mentioned in Ex.B2 award proceedings.

When High Court directed the authorities in W.P.No.18364 of

1997 dated 29.10.1997, appellant No.1/defendant No.1 paid the

market value at Rs.46,000/- per acre with 30% solatium and

interest at 4%, 9% and 15% on the market value after deducting

the income tax, but the respondents/plaintiffs mainly

contended that after passing of the Amendment Act in 1982,

they are entitled for interest at 9% per annum for one year from

the date of taking the possession on the enhanced

compensation and thereafter at 15% per annum on the

enhanced compensation as contemplated under Section 34 of

the Land Acquisition Act and in the Award proceedings under

Ex.B2 dated 23.06.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer clearly

mentioned at page No.6 relating to interest column that they are

entitled for interest at 9% per annum for one year and at 15 %

per annum for the remaining period and calculated accordingly.

When it was not implemented properly by the Land Acquisition

Officer, they claimed for differential amount from the date of

taking the possession. Under Ex.B2, the Land Acquisition

Officer also awarded interest on the solatium as per the above

stated rate and paid accordingly to the plaintiffs.

10. No doudt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision

reported in 1996 LACC 330 SC held that interest on solatium

is not payable and the executing Court is not competent to go

behind the law laid down by the Supreme Court held to be

prospective and not retrospective. In this case, the Award was

passed under Ex.B2 dated 23.06.1994 and the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was in the year 1996, as such there

cannot be retrospective effect on the principle of law of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that interest is not payable on solatium.

The Land Acquisition Officer under Ex.B2 awarded interest on

solatium and accordingly respondents/plaintiffs have claimed

the interest. The said point was clearly answered by the trial

Court and held that respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for

interest on the solatium. It was also observed by considering the

said Judgment that the award passed under Ex.B2 was became

final as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the L.A Act. It was

further held that Land Acquisition Officer irregularly calculated

the interest at 4% which was not found place in the L.A Act, as

such respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for interest @ 9% per

annum for one year and for the rest of the period at 15% per

annum on the enhanced compensation i.e., for the difference

amount. It was further held that Land Acquisition Officer after

the direction of the High Court on 29.10.1997, wrongly made

calculation and deducted the income tax. Respondents herein

stated that the calculation of income tax as found in Ex.B1 is

incorrect. The income of each year must have been taking into

consideration of the individual respondent/plaintiff to assess

the income tax but not for the total period, as the calculation of

the income tax under Ex.B1 is erroneous,

respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for return of same from the

appellants/defendants. It was also held by the trial Court that

the amount claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs under

Annexures - I, II and III were checked and found to be correct

and the said suits were decided in favour of the

respondents/plaintiffs and thus finally it was observed that

O.S.No.1 of 2000 was decreed for an amount of

Rs.4,87,037.76ps with interest @ 12% per annum from the date

of suit till realization and O.S.No.2 of 2000 was decreed for an

amount of Rs.1,89,813.80 ps with interest @ 12% per annum

from the date of suit till realization with costs. This Court finds

no reason to interfere with the said Order.

11. In the result, both appeal suits are dismissed, confirming

the common Judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 in

O.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 2000 passed by the trial Court.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 04.10.2023 tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT Nos.8 & 31 of 2008

DATE: 04.10.2023

TRI