The
Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corpn.Ltd Vs. C. Govinda Padayachi & Anr [2006] Insc
170 (3 April 2006)
B.P.
Singh & Altamas Kabir
(Arising
out of SLP ) No.1821 of 2005) ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
Leave
granted.
Between
1975 and 1978, certain lands in the district of Cuddalore in the State of Tamil Nadu were notified for acquisition under
Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' ) for the purpose of expansion of the mines belonging to the
appellant herein. In such notification, 0.22 acres of house sites and 0.78
acres of manavary dry lands, belonging to the respondent No.1 herein, were
acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs.4,370.61 to
the respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.6,250/- per acre for house sites and
Rs.3,200/- per acre in respect of manavary dry lands, excluding solatium and
interest.
Dissatisfied
with the award of the Collector, the respondent No.1 filed a reference
petition, being L.A.O.P.No.279/1982, before the Sub-Judge, Cuddalore, on 20th August, 1984. The Reference Court by its award increased the quantum of compensation to Rs.50,000/-
per acre for house sites and Rs.40,000/- per acre for manavary dry lands,
excluding solatium and interest.
Being
aggrieved by the order passed on reference by the Sub-Judge, Cuddalore, the
Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), in his capacity as the appropriate
authority, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 26th February, 1985, being A.S. No.190/1985. By way of an interim order,
the High Court directed the appellant herein to deposit the enhanced
compensation awarded by the Reference Court
with the stipulation that 50 per cent of such amount could be withdrawn by the
land owner without security and the remaining balance could be withdrawn upon
furnishing security.
Pursuant
to the aforesaid direction of the High Court, the appellant herein deposited a
sum of Rs.53,573.30 in court on 8th April, 1985. The respondent No.1 withdrew 50 per cent of the deposit,
i.e. Rs.26,786.65, without furnishing security, but did not withdraw the
balance by furnishing security.
Accordingly,
the balance 50 per cent of the deposited amount was directed by the court to be
kept in a bank in a short-term fixed deposit. In the meantime, in a batch of
similar matters, including A.S.No.190/1985, the High Court reduced the rate of
compensation for house sites from Rs.50,000/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre
and for the manavary dry lands from Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.15,000/- per
acre, excluding solatium and interest.
The
respondent No.1 and other land owners filed special leave petitions in this
Court against the judgment of the High Court, being Civil Appeal
No.6977-7002/1999, wherein the following order was passed by this Court on 7th
December, 1999 :- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and with
a view to give quietus to this litigation in the present set of cases, it
appears appropriate to us, in order to do complete justice between the parties,
to direct as follows:-
-
That in modification
of the orders of the High Court, the compensation shall be payable to the land
holders in these cases at the following rates:- Wetlands Rs.94,000/- per acre
Irrigated Dry land Rs.82,000/- per acre Dry land Rs.47,000/- per acre Cashew Thope
Rs.85,000/- per acre House Sites Rs.73,000/- per acre. These amounts are
inclusive of solatium and interest and are lump-sum payments. The rates fixed
by us above are confined to the present set of cases.
-
That no
previously settled cases shall be re-opened on the basis of the rates fixed by
us as above.
-
In cases where
the land holders have withdrawn from the bank out of the 50 % deposit and are
required to refund some amount on the basis of the amounts as fixed by us
above, the Corporation shall recover that amount by 12 equal installments of
one and a half month each. Similarly, if any additional amount, under our above
directions, is to be paid to the landholders, it shall be done within three
months from the date of this order.
-
In the event,
the amount of 50 % is still lying with the banks and a refund is required to be
made to the Corporation by the landholders, that refund may be obtained out of
the 50 % amount of bank deposit.
With
the aforesaid directions all the claims arising out of the 89 appeal listed before
us shall stand disposed of in full and final settlement." As per the
aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 who had already received a sum of Rs.4,370.61
under the order of the Collector and a further sum of Rs.26,786.65 being 50 per
cent of the deposit without furnishing security, aggregating a sum of
Rs.31,157.26, was entitled to receive a further a sum of Rs.21,562.74 towards
full and final settlement of his claim.
In
keeping with the aforesaid order of this Court, the appellant herein arranged
for the remittance to the court of a sum of Rs.1,05,548/- representing the
amount of deposit lying with the bank, together with the interest earned
thereon.
The
appellant filed I.A. No.8/2001 in L.A.O.P.No.279/1982, along with a memo of
calculation, before the court of Sub- Judge, Cuddalore, claiming payment of
Rs.83,985.26 in terms of the orders of this Court dated 7th December, 1999. The respondent No.1 also filed an
application, being I.A.No.104/2002, wherein he claimed the balance of the lump
sum amount, namely, 21,562.74 together with the entire amount of interest
earned on the deposit, being Rs.80,000/-. According to the respondent No.1, the
amount to be refunded to the appellant herein was only Rs.5,223.91 and not
Rs.83,985.26 as claimed by it. The said petition of the respondent No.1 was
taken up for consideration by the Sub-Judge, Cuddalore, on 17th June, 2004 and
a direction was given to the parties to file revised memo of calculation on the
basis of the orders passed by this Court on 7th December,1999.
Aggrieved
by the said order, respondent No.1 filed a Revision Petition, being C.R.P.No.
1406/2004, against the order of the Sub-Judge, Cuddalore, dated 17th June,
2004, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 227 of the
Constitution. The High Court by its order dated 27th October, 2004, directed
refund of a sum of Rs.5,224/- only to the appellant as against its claim of
Rs.82,980.82 and also directed payment of Rs.1,00,324/- to the respondent No.1.
This
appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court dated 27th October, 2004. On behalf of the appellant it was
urged by Mr. Reddy, learned senior advocate, that the claim of the respondent
No.1 and the order passed there upon by the High Court was not sustainable in view
of the specific order passed by this Court on 7th December, 1999, while
disposing of the earlier batch of appeals that the amounts as quantified in
respect of the different categories of land were lump sum payments which
included solatium and interest. In other words, the amount of compensation
payable, which included solatium and interest, was quantified and crystallized
by the order of 7th
December, 1999. The
respondent No.1 would, therefore, be entitled to the compensation as was
quantified on that date as far as his lands were concerned and in the event
there was further delay in payment of the compensation amount, the said
respondent could at best claim interest on the compensation amount as
quantified after 7th
December, 1999. It was
submitted that the claim of the said respondent No.1 for payment of interest on
the sum quantified by the order of this Court in terms of Section 28 of the Act
was misconceived and the High Court had also misconstrued the purport of the
order passed by this Court on 7th December, 1999. Mr. Reddy submitted that the respondent No.1 who was entitled to a
total compensation amount of Rs.53,573.30 and had already received a sum of
Rs.31,157.26 from the same, was entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.
21,562.74 and interest thereupon from the date of this Court's order dated 7th
December, 1999 till the date of actual payment at the rate of interest to be
decided by this Court. It was submitted further that the amount which was
deposited by the appellant in court pursuant to the direction given by the High
Court did not represent the awarded sum but security for the same since the
award had not attained finality. It was submitted that it was only on 7th
December, 1999 that the awarded sum stood quantified by virtue of the orders
passed by this Court in the earlier batch of appeals and accordingly the
respondent No.1 could have no claim to the amount as deposited and his claim
would have to be confined to the amount as quantified by this Court which
included not only the value of the lands acquired, but solatium and interest as
well.
The
stand taken on behalf of the appellant was strongly opposed on behalf of
respondent No.1 mainly on the ground that by virtue of the order passed by the
High Court, the respondent No.1 was not only entitled to receive 50 per cent of
the amount deposited in court by the appellant without furnishing security, but
that the said respondent was also entitled to withdraw the balance 50 per cent
upon furnishing security. It was contended that the respondent No.1 had
acquired a right to the remaining 50 per cent of the amount deposited by virtue
of the said order of the High Court and that had he withdrawn the said amount
upon furnishing security in 1985, he could have enjoyed the benefits of the said
amount as had been done by various other similarly placed individuals. It was
submitted that it is well-settled that any amount which accrues to deposits
made pursuant to the orders of the court are to be paid to the persons entitled
to such deposits.
Mr. Viswanathan,
learned advocate, who appeared for the respondent No.1, referred to Section 28
of the Act to bolster the claim of the respondent No.1 that in addition to the
compensation as quantified by this Court earlier, the respondent No.1 was also
entitled to interest on the excess amount as awarded by this Court from the
date on which the possession of the lands was taken till the payment of such
excess amount into court. Reference was also made to Section 33 of the said Act
on account of the fact that the appellant had been directed to deposit in court
the amount determined as compensation by the Reference Court which amount had
been invested and had earned interest while the matter was pending.
In
this regard, reference was made to the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211, wherein on an
interpretation of Sections 28 and 34 of the aforesaid Act, it was held that
interest was also payable on solatium and that the amount of the award in Section
34 means the aggregate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the
provisions of all the Sub-sections of Section 23 which includes solatium.
Having
considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are
unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 on
account of the fact that by order dated 7th December, 1999, this Court while
fixing a lump sum amount as compensation, took into consideration not only the
value of the land acquired but solatium and interest as well. The interest that
could have been claimed under Sections 28 and 33 of the above Act were, in
fact, included in the lump sum amount till 7th December, 1999, and interest can be claimed by the
respondent No.1 on the quantified amount only after 7th December, 1999 till the date of payment.
In our
view, the High Court misconstrued its earlier order in A.S.N.190/1985 directing
the appellant to deposit the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court and permitting the land owners to
withdraw 50 per cent of such amount without security and the remaining 50 per
cent upon furnishing of security. While passing its order on 27th October,
2004, the High Court appears to have missed sight of the fact that when the
direction was given in A.S.No.190/1985 to the appellant herein to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation, the award was yet to be finalized and that the
award was ultimately finalized on 7th December, 1999 by this Court and that the
respondent No.1 would, therefore, be entitled to compensation in terms of the
amount as quantified on 7th December, 1999. In our view, in the light of the
order passed by this Court on 7th December, 1999, quantifying the compensation
amount to include solatium and interest, the provisions of Sections 28 and 33
of the above Act would no longer be attracted and the respondent No.1 would
only be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the quantified amount on
and from 7th December, 1999 till the date of actual payment.
In
that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the
High Court impugned in the appeal is set aside and it is directed that out of
the sum of Rs. 1,05,548/- remitted to the court below by the bank, the
respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.21,562.74, being the
balance amount of the total compensation payable in terms of the compensation
quantified by this Court's Order dated 7th December, 1999, together with
interest thereupon calculated at the rate of 15 per cent from 7th December, 1999,
till the date of payment of the balance amount of the award. Having regard to
the fact that the lands were acquired between 1975 and 1978, such payment
should be made expeditiously, but positively within a period of six months from
the date of the communication of this judgment. The amount left over after
payment of the aforesaid sums are to be paid to the appellant.
There
will be no order as to costs.
Back
