Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1876 of 2006
PETITIONER:
The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corpn.Ltd
RESPONDENT:
C. Govinda Padayachi & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/2006
BENCH:
B.P. Singh & Altamas Kabir
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(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could be withdrawn by the land owner without security and
the remaining balance could be withdrawn upon furnishing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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
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:-
(1) 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.
(2). That no previously settled cases shall be
re-opened on the basis of the rates fixed by us
as above.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
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.