Judgment :- 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in I.A. No. 85 of 1990, on the file of District Judge. Nilgiris District. Udagamandalam. on 7.10.1997. 2. The circumstances under which the petitioners have come to this Court with this revision may be summarised thus: — Under the provisions of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969, the petitioners Janmam lands were taken over by the Government and the same absolutely vested in it. One of the estates that vests with the Government is Nelliyalam Jenmam Estate and in this Writ petition we are only concerned with that estate. Under Section 29 of the said Act, the petitioners are entitled to compensation on the basis of basic annual sum. Under Section 29 of the Act, on the basis of a data, compensation has to be determined and the jenmee is also entitled to apply to the Director of Survey and Settlement to get a copy of the data and to make his representation with regard to the determination and compensation. There is also a provision in the Act, that in case there is a delay in fixing the compensation, they will be entitled to interim compensation. 3. The petitioners made a request on 11.8.1989 requesting the Director of Survey and Settlement to inform them whether any basic annual sum has been determined and to furnish them a copy of data. It was informed to the petitioners at that time (as per reply dated 12.9.1989,) that the basic annual sum and total compensation is not determined in respect of Nelliyalam Jenmam and notification under Section 29(1) of the Act will be issued shortly, and therefore, their request for data has not been complied with. Thereafter, the petitioners continued their efforts in getting the details of the data, and they were also asked to produce necessary stamp papers by orders dated 26.3.1990. The same was also complied with. At that stage, the petitioners received a communication dated 7.3.1990, stating that a sum of Rs. 1,717-32 has been confirmed as basic annual sum and the total compensation in respect of Nelliyalam Jenmam Estate has been calculated as Rs. 34,346.40. The petitioners herein challenged the same in W.P. Nos. 7407 and 7408 of 1990. The same was also complied with. At that stage, the petitioners received a communication dated 7.3.1990, stating that a sum of Rs. 1,717-32 has been confirmed as basic annual sum and the total compensation in respect of Nelliyalam Jenmam Estate has been calculated as Rs. 34,346.40. The petitioners herein challenged the same in W.P. Nos. 7407 and 7408 of 1990. It was contended before this Court that the order is without compliance of Section 29 of the Act, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. A learned Judge of this court, as per order dated 9.10.1990, quashed that order and directed that the basic annual sum and the total compensation amount payable to the petitioners shall be determined strictly in conformity with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, after furnishing the petitioners a copy of data issued, on the basis of which the amount of compensation has to be determined. The petitioners shall also be given opportunity to make representation either orally or in writing. The revised orders determining the amount of compensation shall be issued on or before 31.12.1990, after affording opportunities to the petitioners. The writ petitions were allowed on the above line. 4. The respondent who was not satisfied with the order of the learned single Judge, filed Writ Appeal Nos. 258 and 259 of 1991. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, and thereafter the petitioners have received a communication on 2.1.1995, from the respondent, which states that “the revised final compensation orders will be intimated to the petitioners as and when the stay is vacated by the Supreme Court, in certain connected matters”. In the meanwhile Gazette publication has been made, as per which t he interim compensation has been fixed at Rs. 22,876/- for each agricultural year. On the basis of the said calculation a sum of Rs. 3,20,264/- was deposited by the respondent. On such deposit of the amount, petitioners wanted to withdraw the same. But the Tribunal allowed the petitioners to withdraw a sum of Rs. 62,580.80 alone. 5. Not satisfied with the order of the Gudalur Janmam Abolition Tribunal, the petitioners filed S.T. Appeal No. 4 of 1991, before this Court. The Division Bench as per Judgment dated 24.3.1997, set aside the order, after taking into consideration the previous orders in this case, especially that of Justice Sathiadev, in an earlier Contempt Application No. 85 of 1989. 5. Not satisfied with the order of the Gudalur Janmam Abolition Tribunal, the petitioners filed S.T. Appeal No. 4 of 1991, before this Court. The Division Bench as per Judgment dated 24.3.1997, set aside the order, after taking into consideration the previous orders in this case, especially that of Justice Sathiadev, in an earlier Contempt Application No. 85 of 1989. Instead of taking bits from that order, it is better to extract the entire Judgment of the Division Bench in S.T.A. No. 4 of 1991, which reads thus: — “The above appeal has been filed under Section 41(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), against the order of the Gudalur Janmam Abolition Tribunal/District Judge, Ootacamund, at Nilgiris, dated 4.5.1990, in I.A. No. 85 of 1990, whereunder the Tribunal below has chosen to permit the release of a sum of Rs. 62,580.80 to the appellants herein, without prejudice to their rights to the amounts due to them fro the respondent. This order itself came to be made on a petition preferred by the appellants in I.A. No. 85 of 1980 invoking the provisions of Section 40(1) of the Act, for apportionment of the interim compensation of Rs. 3,20,264/- held in deposit in equal half share and issue a cheque for Rs. 1,60,132/- for each of the appellants herein, who were petitioners before the Tribunal below. The claim as such came to be made pursuant to the orders of Sathiadev, J. in Sub-application Nos. 207 to 209, 219 and 220 of 1989 and Contempt Application No. 85 of 1989, whereunder the learned Judge has passed the following order:_ ‘It is since clarified that petitioners in Sub-Application Nos. 207 and 219 of 1989 N.M. Kadamban Namboodiripad and N.M. Subramaniam Namboodiripad are entitled to the interim payments deposited from time to time relating to Nelliyalam Janmam. A Gazette notification dated 25.1.1998 is produced and it shows that for the periods mentioned therein, amounts had been deposited on the date mentioned therein. It is also submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Gopalaratnam that on 17.3.1989 a further deposit has be en made. It is now for the Jenmam Abolition Tribunal, Gudalur to ascertain the quantum of amount which had become payable to these two petitioners relating to Nelliyalam Jenmam. It is also submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Gopalaratnam that on 17.3.1989 a further deposit has be en made. It is now for the Jenmam Abolition Tribunal, Gudalur to ascertain the quantum of amount which had become payable to these two petitioners relating to Nelliyalam Jenmam. They are not entitled to draw out any amount deposited in respect of any other Jenmam. The entire balance of the amount, to be drawn out for the other Jenmams by the petitioners in Contempt Application No. 85 of 1989 without prejudice to rights of any others who may come forward to claim the amounts. The amounts being drawn out by the respective parties will be without prejudice to their rights to have the, amounts correctly determined later on. Based on this order, the Tribunal to proceed to disburse the amounts within 2 weeks from the receipt of steno copy of this order. Regarding the amount deposited on 17.3.1989- Rs. 69,667/- the quantum of amount payable to Nelliyalam Jenmam to be ascertained and accordingly paid over to the aforesaid two persons and the balance to be drawn out by the petitioners in Contempt Application No. 85 of 1989. To this effect these petitions are ordered Order dated 4.8.1989 is revoked.’ 2. Heard Mr. Gopalaratnam, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Arumugham, learned Government Advocate for the respondent, Officer of the State. The matter was heard for some time and having regard to the nature of controversy between the parties, we felt that if the authorities give correct calculations in terms of the directions contained in the order of Sathiadev, J., the matter which has been considerably delayed already, could be given a quietus and in order to ascertain the same from the authorities, time was granted more than once. In spite of the above, the respondent authority is not, in our view, taking any sincere or effective steps to give a quietus to the matter and instead, taking an evasive role. In view of such response, we have no other go, but to consider the appeal on merits. 3. In spite of the above, the respondent authority is not, in our view, taking any sincere or effective steps to give a quietus to the matter and instead, taking an evasive role. In view of such response, we have no other go, but to consider the appeal on merits. 3. After considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the Government Advocate for the respondent, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal below cannot be said to be the correct one to be passed in the sense that it has not properly carried out the directions of Sathiadev, J. noticed supra. The learned Tribunal/District Judge was in error in not properly carrying out the directions of Sathiadev, J. and instead merely allowing the parties on account to draw only a sum of Rs. 62,580.80, in respect of which only the Special Government Pleader appearing before the Tribunal had no objection. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants the determination made earlier of the amounts due in respect of the Jenmam estate in question and its Notification in the Gazette almost resulted in a decision of the quantum and what is further to be necessarily done is the apportionment of the amounts and this could have been done by the Tribunal without much difficulty or exercise on its part. We were not only unable to understand the course adopted by the Tribunal below, but there is absolutely no reason for the Tribunal even adopting such a course without determining the proportionate share of the compensation due to the appellants by effectively and in substance carrying out the directions of Sathiadev, J. In the light of the above, instead of setting aside order as such of the Tribunal below, the Tribunal below is directed to forthwith restore the application in I.A. No. 85 of 1990 to its file and to proceed to dispose of the same afresh since the order passed on 4.5.1990 allowing the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 62,580.80 cannot by itself be considered to be real or effective disposal of the application or the claim and for relief sought for in the said application. 62,580.80 cannot by itself be considered to be real or effective disposal of the application or the claim and for relief sought for in the said application. The learned District Judge/Tribunal below and after notice to the parties on either side, to decide and apportion the sum due to the appellants before us in terms of the directions contained in the order of Sathiadev, J. The Tribunal shall ensure passing of final orders by the end of June, 1997 and at any rate not later than the end of July 1997. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal/District Judge, Ootacamund at Nilgiris. The Tribunal below is also directed to act even before such communication takes place through office, on production of an authenticated copy of the judgment by either of the parties before us. The records, if any, received f rom the Tribunal shall also be returned to the Tribunal along with the copy of this Judgment. This appeal shall stand finally disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.” 6. Pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench, the Tribunal restored the application I.A. No. 85 of 1990 for reconsideration. At that time, the respondent filed a memo on 31.7.1997 and wanted some more time to complete the enquiry. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. After extracting the relevant portion of the application filed by the petitioners, the Tribunal believing the representation of the Government Pleader, dismissed the same. The representation before the Tribunal was that the final compensation has already been fixed at Rs. 1717.40 and the petitioners have already received a sum of Rs. 62,580.80, which is far in excess of their share and therefore, dismissed the application. It is the said order, that is challenged in this revision. 7. On going by the impugned order, I find that the order of the Court below is perverse and the same has not taken into consideration the earlier orders of this Court and has fully believed the statement of the Government Pleader, who has misrepresented the facts and has caused great prejudice to the petitioners. 8. While narrating the facts, I have said Justice S. Ramalingam, as per order dated 9.10.1990 in W.P. Nos. 8. While narrating the facts, I have said Justice S. Ramalingam, as per order dated 9.10.1990 in W.P. Nos. 7407 & 7408 of 1990, set aside the order determining the basic annual sum and the total compensation in respect of Neeliyalam Jenmam Estate, and a direction was given that the compensation has to be fixed after notice to the petitioners and following the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. Thereafter the petitioners were issued a notice on 2.1.1995, stating that final compensation will be fixed after the stay is vacated by the Honble Supreme Court. Without looking into any of these orders, that too the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A., Nos. 258 & 259 of 1991, a misrepresentation was made by the Government Pleader that the petitioners have received the compensation, much more than what they are entitled to. 9. I can only say that the Government Pleader has misrepresented the facts. In fact, the statements made by the Government Pleader before the Tribunal are not correct, is admitted even in the counter affidavit and they seek unconditional apology for the mistake committed. When a counsel is appointed as a Government Pleader, Court expects a little more responsibility on his part, and he should not have made submissions without looking into the papers. A Government Pleader is expected to be little more vigilant and make his representations before making submissions and the Tribunal also was swayed away by the representation without looking into the records. If only the court below has perused the records, or applied little more time for considering the case, this would not have happened. In fact, both the Government Pleader and the Court below have acted illegally, which resulted in the passing of the impugned order. 10. Learned Government Advocate appearing before this Court submitted that against the impugned order, statutory appeal is maintainable, and therefore, the revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution should not be entertained. I fail to understand such an argument made after having made a false representation before the Court below, When the order of a Judicial Authority is not passed by application of mind and when the entire order is based on misconception and without looking into the records, the order is a nullity. I fail to understand such an argument made after having made a false representation before the Court below, When the order of a Judicial Authority is not passed by application of mind and when the entire order is based on misconception and without looking into the records, the order is a nullity. I do not think that injustice will be caused to the respondent if the jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution is invoked or the impugned order is quashed. 11. It may also be noted that the Division Bench, on an earlier occasion has commented on the conduct of the respondent. In paragraph 2 of the Judgment, the Division Bench has taken note of the evasive attitude of the respondent in not paying the compensation or in not taking effective steps. The conduct of the respondent is now supported by the Court below by passing the impugned order, which was done without looking into the back records. I leave the matter there. 12. The question to be decided is what is the relief to be granted to the petitioners in this case. It is not disputed that there is a Gazette Notification, fixing the interim compensation of Rs. 22,875/- per Agricultural year. From 27.11.1974 till date viz., for nearly 25 years, the amount is due, out of which the petitioners were allowed to realise only Rs. 62,580.80. The balance amount is payable. Even the sum of Rs. 3,20,269/- which was calculated on the above basis and deposited was not allowed to be withdrawn, and on the basis of the statement given by the then Government Pleader, the same was allowed to be adjusted in some other account. The same was also improper. At any rate, the petitioners will be entitled to get the interim compensation at the above rate for the last 25 years, of course, giving credit to the amount already received by them viz. Rs. 62,580.80. The respondent cannot deny the payment, so long as the final compensation is not paid. They are bound to deposit the same in Court for payment to the petitioners. 13. The Petitioners before this Court have also filed C.M.P. Nos. 1597 and 1598 of 1998 wherein they wanted interest at 18% p.a., for the delay in payment. Under Section 40 of the Act, the payment is directed to be made as an interim arrangement. They are bound to deposit the same in Court for payment to the petitioners. 13. The Petitioners before this Court have also filed C.M.P. Nos. 1597 and 1598 of 1998 wherein they wanted interest at 18% p.a., for the delay in payment. Under Section 40 of the Act, the payment is directed to be made as an interim arrangement. It ought to have been deposited in every Agricultural year. From the earlier orders of this Court, it is clear that the respondent was not acting according to the directions of this Court and even misrepresented the facts, denying the petitioners right. There was an earlier order by Justice Sathiadev, to deposit a sum of Rs. 1-1/2 lakhs for payment to the petitioner. That order was also not complied with. Under the above circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the petitioners are entitled to interest. As on date, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 5,03,272/- as interim compensation, according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. Interest is claimed at Rs. 9,74,265/- at the rate of 18% p.a. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. If that is so, they will be entitled approximately to an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. 14. I direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) on or before 15.6.1998 for payment to the petitioners. I am fixing the rate of interest only tentatively. The question whether they are entitled to more amount whether towards principal or interest will be decided after the said amount is deposited and final orders are passed on the Civil Revision Petition. The petitioners are also entitled to costs in the revision. I quantify the counsel fee as Rs. 5,000/-. The same is also to be deposited along with the aforesaid amount to be deposited on or before 15.6.1998. 15. In the result, an interim order is passed, directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) for payment to the petitioners, along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards Advocates fee. The actual amount due will be decided on compliance of the above direction. Final orders will also be passed after compliance of the above order. Call on 18.6.1998.