The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) vs P. Saraswathi and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—In all these revisions the Special Tahsildar, Tirunelveli, namely the Land Acquisition Officer, who is now the Revenue

Divisional Officer, is the revision Petitioner.

The revision Petitioner acquired the lands belonged to the Respondents in these revisions for the Defence purpose and passed an order in

Award No. 1 of 1983 dated 22.04.1983. The possession was taken on 01.01.1981 and the revision Petitioner passed an award of Rs. 100/- per

cent for the lands acquired. The owners applied for reference u/s 18 of the Act and reference was ordered in LAOP Nos. 93,94,95,96 and 97 of

1985 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the learned Sub-Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 100 to Rs. 150/- per cent.

Aggrieved over the same, the revision Petitioner filed an appeal before this Court and this Court has further enhanced the compensation to Rs.

200/- per cent and that has become final. Thereafter, the claimants filed E.P. Nos. 262,263,266 and 370 of 2006 for executing the award passed

in LAOP. Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97 of 1985, by calculating the compensation as per the provisions of Sections 23(1) 23(1-A) 23(2) and

Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and after giving credit to the various payments of Revenue Officer, claimed a sum of Rs. 11,14,713.36,

Rs. 3,70,762.06, Rs. 4,64,885/- and Rs. 6,07,403.92.

The revision Petitioner filed a counter stating that the calculation memo filed by the claimants are not in accordance with the law and they are not

entitled to claim interest on solatium as the award was passed on 22.04.1983, before coming into force of Act 68 of 1984 and also submitted their

own calculation and contended that the amount claimed by the claimants cannot be ordered and as per their calculation, only a very meagre

amount is to be paid to the claimants. The learned sub-judge relied upon the judgment in Sundar v. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 S.C.C.

211 negatived the contention of the revision Petitioner and held that as per the said judgment, the claimants are entitled to claim interest on solatium

also and the calculation given by the claimants as stated in E.P. is proper and allowed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, these revisions are

filed.

Mr. Nallathambi, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs.

Union of India, , the claimants are not entitled to any interest as the award was passed earlier to 1984 and therefore, the calculation of the

claimants are not correct and the claimants are not entitled to amount claimed by them.

On the other hand, Mr. K. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel for the claimants in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1050, 1051 and 1053 of 2009 and Mr. R.

Arumugam, the learned Counsel for the claimants in C.R.P(NPD) No. 1052 of 2009, submitted that the calculation made by the claimants in the

execution proceedings are in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23(1), 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and

these matters have been dealt with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), , wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme

Court has elaborately discussed all these aspects and held that the claimants are entitled to claim interest on solatium and therefore, the order of the

Lower Court need not be interfered with.

To appreciate the contention of the parties, certain dates are relevant. It is held by the learned Sub-Judge in the above LAO Ps that possession

was taken on 01.01.1981, though 4(1) notification was published on 07.07.1982, and award was passed on 22.04.1983, Act 68 of 1984 came

into force on 24.09.1984. Considering all these aspects, the learned Sub-Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 100/- per cent to Rs. 150/-

per cent with 30% solatium and with interest at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession viz., 01.01.1981, till the date of award dated

20.04.1983 and thereafter, at 9% per annum. In the first appeal filed against the award in A.S. Nos. 1198 to 1200 of 1989, 957, 963, 965, 966,

1269 of 1990 and 432 of 1994 dated 25.04.2009, this Court had held as follows:

With regard to statutory amounts payable to the claimants, it is made clear that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only for the market

value of the lands acquired. In addition to this, the claimants are entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4 (1)

notification, till the date of passing the award or delivery of possession, whichever is earlier. It is also made clear that the 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 of 15% per annum till the date

of deposit. It is further made clear that the claimants are 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 Hon''ble Supreme Court, depending on the outcome of the case before the Supreme

Court, the claimants are entitled to file an appropriate petition before the Sub-Court.

It is made clear in the order passed by this Court that the issue regarding the grant of interest on solatium is pending before the Larger Bench of

the Hon''ble Supreme Court and depending on the outcome of the case before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to file an

appropriate petition before the Sub-Court. Further, this Court has also upheld the finding of the learned Sub-Judge that the claimants are entitled to

30% solatium only for the market value of the land acquired and also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4

(1) notification, till the date of passing of the award or delivery of possession, whichever is earlier and the claimants are also entitled to the interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of

deposit. The order of this Court was as per Section 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The

pendency of the case before the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to by this Court was the case reported in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India

(UOI), , wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment rendered in Sunder Vs. Union of India, , insofar as the

calculation of the compensation as per Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Act, and also upheld the appropriation of the amount paid by the

Land Acquisition Officer towards the compensation as per the law laid down in Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizer Corporation of

India Ltd., and Ors. reported in 1995 (5) SCR 790.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court also raised the question whether in the light of the decision in Sunder Vs. Union of India, , awardee/ decree holder

would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted in the decree and held as follows:

It is well settled that an Execution Court cannot go behind the decree. If therefore, the 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 mearly 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

Therefore, it has been made clear by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above judgment that when the reference Court or Appellate Court

does not specifically refer to interest on solatium or in case where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the

Reference Court or the Appellate Court and it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation

awarded includes solatium and in such an event, interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited to the Execution Court. It is further made

clear that the Execution Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sundar v. Union of India rendered on

19.09.2001 and as per the judgment of our High Court in the appeals filed against the LAO Ps referred to above, it has been made clear that the

issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is depending on the outcome by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above judgment answered the question that the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to interest on

solatium, when it is not specifically rejected in the decree. But, in this case it is seen from the decree that 30% solatium and 12% interest as per

Section 23(1-A) was granted and as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled to claim interest on the excessive

amount of compensation.

As stated supra, in all these cases, interest was claimed u/s 28 of the Act, from the date of taking possession which is against the judgment

rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above judgment and the claimants are entitled to claim interest as per Section 28 only from

19.09.2001 (i.e) the date of judgment in Sunder case and they are not entitled to claim interest prior to that period. As the claimants have

calculated the interest on solatium from the date of taking possession, the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court

and the Lower Court without appreciating the judgment rendered in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), , allowed the Execution Court, as if

the calculation given by the claimants is right and hence, the order of the Lower Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Lower Court

and the claimants are directed to file a fresh calculations as per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of

India (UOI), , as indicated above by calculating interest on solatium from 19.09.2001. Hence, the order of the Lower Court is set aside and the

revisions are allowed and the revisions are remanded to the Lower Court. The claimants are entitled to file fresh calculations as per the judgment

rendered in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), and the Executing Court is also directed to verify the same and pass appropriate orders.

Considering the fact that the land was acquired in the year 1981, the Lower Court is directed to pass orders within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of this order in the execution application filed by the Respondents. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

No costs.