The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) vs Kuthalingam Chettiyar (died) & Ors.

This appeal suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging the award of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi,

made in LAOP.No.1 of 1995, dated 1.4.1998.

The Appellants are the referring Officers in the land acquisition proceedings, initiated in Gunaramanallur Village, Tenkasi by reference dated

30.3.1994, bearing No.12/93-94 with respect to S.No.704/2B to an extent of 0.10.0 hectares of dry land and S.No.704/3, to an extent of 0.37.5

hectares of dry land, in all measuring 0.47.5 hectares or 1.17 acres. The person interested in the said land is the Respondent herein, Kuthalingam

Chettiyar. Possession had been taken on 4.4.1994. The value fixed was Rs.29,606/- which was received by Kuthalingam Chettiar under protest

and a claim under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was preferred.

It had been stated that a notice under Section 4(1) was published in the Village on 11.1.1993 and a draft declaration under Section 6 was

published in the Village on 14.12.1993. Subsequently, a notice under Section 9(3)(1) of the Act was served by the Village Administrative Officer

on 23.2.1994 and a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served by the Village Administrative Officer on 14.4.1994. In the

award, as stated above, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Tenkasi, had fixed the compensation amount at

Rs.29,606/-.

In the claim statement in LAOP.No.1 of 1995 filed by the Respondent herein in the Sub Court, Tenkasi, it had been claimed that the said

compensation amount was very low and against the principles enunciated to arrive at the compensation amount. It had been stated that the lands

were agricultural lands. There were house plots surrounding the said lands and consequently, the value had increased. It had been further stated

that the claimant was conducting harvest in the said lands. It had been further stated that the Land Acquisition Officer should have considered the

Document No.465 of 1992 dated 12.3.1992 with respect to S.No.6999, in which Rs.1,415/- was fixed for one cent and Document No.356 of

1992, dated 28.2.1992 for S.No. 701/3, in which Rs.1,530/- was fixed for one cent and Document No.689 of 1992 dated 31.3.1993 for

S.No.701/1, in which Rs.1,333/- was fixed per cent. It had been further stated that interest should have been granted at 12% p.a. and 30%

solatium should have also been granted. It had been further stated that subsequent 15% interest should have been granted.

The court below had considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimant and also on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, who was

represented by a Government Advocate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed

Rs.994.50/- for one cent. This was in comparison to Rs.188.49/- fixed for one cent by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was further provided that

interest at 12% p.a. should be granted from 2.12.1992 to 30.3.1994 and 30% solatium must also be granted and 9% interest should be granted

for one year within which deposit should be made, failing which interest at the rate of 15% p.a. should be paid. Advocate fees of Rs.1,000/- was

also granted. As against the same, the State Government has filed this appeal.

It is seen that the court below had fixed the value by taking into consideration Ex.A2, which is dated 12.3.1992 and is a sale deed in favour of

one Ayappan by Abdul Majid and in which the value for one cent was fixed at Rs.1530/-. The court below had deducted 60% and thereafter,

fixed the value at Rs.994.50/-. During the trial, the Respondent herein had produced three documents. Ex.A1 was the sale deed 28.2.1992.

Ex.A2 was the sale deed dated 12.3.1992 and Ex.A3 was the sale deed dated 31.3.1992. He had also examined two witnesses. PW.1 was the

Respondent herein and PW.2 was Mariappa Pillai. PW.2 was the witnesses to Ex.A2. Consequently, the court below had considered the said

documents in view of the sanctity that the witness who was personally aware of the document had been examined in court. Before this court, the

learned counsel for the Respondents stated that originally the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil

Nadu Act 31/1978), which came into force from 24.9.1979 was struck down by the Madras High Court in its judgement dated 9.9.1982

reported in 1996-LW-48-SN (Ananthi Ammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu). However, the learned counsel pointed out the present land acquisition

proceedings, in which 4(1) notification was issued on 2.12.1992 during the period when the Act had been struck down and the Government of

Tamil Nadu had challenged the said order of the Madras High Court before the Honourable Supreme Court.

In the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 (State of Tamilnadu Vs. Ananthi Ammal), the order of the Madras High Court was reversed

and it was held that the said Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India except Section 11(1),

which is valid only to the extent it provides for payment of compensation of lump sum. The other provisions of Section 11(1) were struck down as

violative of Article 14. In the said judgement, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that the said Act is not discriminatory and not violative of

Article 14 and is not arbitrary. It had been specifically stated that except for the provisions under Section 11(1) relating to instalments, all other

provisions intra vires the Constitution of India.

In 2005 1 CTC 241 (Kuppusamy Reddiar Vs. The Collector, Villupuram) the Division Bench of this court had specifically held as follows in

paragraph 15:- ""15. It is well known that the people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are mainly poor or landless. They have

been oppressed for thousand of years and all kinds of atrocities have been inflicted on them by the so-called upper castes. It is for this reason that

Compensatory State action is required to up-lift them and bring them up to the level of socalled upper castes. In the modern age, equality is one of

the highest values and discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can no longer be tolerated if our country has to remain united

and progress. Hence, the Tamil Nadu Act 1978 was a salutary measure in the interest of the nation, and it cannot be said to be void after the

enactment of Land Acquisition Amendment Act) 1984. "" Therefore, it is seen that the validity of the Act has been upheld and consequently, these

land acquisition proceedings also arises with the same objective and the order under challenge has to be interfered with in so far as the grant of

interest is concerned.

Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978) is as follows:-

Payment of interest:- When the amount is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the prescribed authority shall pay

the amount with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or

deposited and such interest shall be paid or deposited by the prescribed authority in the same manner as provided for the amount."" When the Act

is specific that interest at the rate of 6% p.a., alone can be granted, the rate of interest granted otherwise by the court below has to be held as not

in conformity with the Act.

The learned counsel for the Respondent urged that this court should enhance the compensation and relied on an unreported judgement

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

Srcm made in SA(MD)No.160 of 2007 dated 13.08.2013. The said judgement relates to provisions of FERA and FEMA Acts. However, even

in 1995 1 SCC 519 (State of Tamil Nadu and others Ananthi Ammal and others) it had been very specifically held that the sources of authority of

the comparative legislations will have to be first determined and it was further held that Act 31 of 1978 has to be analysed with respect to the

scope and object of that particular Act and there can be no comparison with any other legislation. Consequently, I hold that the said judgement

relied on by the learned counsel for the Respondent has to be distinguished in so far as the present Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of

Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978) is concerned.

In the result, this appeal suit is partly decreed in so far as the amount of interest alone is concerned. The compensation fixed at Rs.994.50/- per

cent with respect to the land in question is upheld. The rate of interest and solatium granted by the court below are reversed. However, the rate of

interest shall be only in accordance with Section 12 of the Act, namely, 6% p.a.