Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1523 (AP)

M. A. Basith v. Land Acquisition Officer

2004-12-20

A.GOPAL REDDY

body2004
( 1 ) (PETITION under Section 115 of CPC, to revise the order dated 25/11/2003 in E. P. No. 74 of 1998 on the file of the court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R. R. District, at L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad ). Common Order: these four revisions have been heard together because they have common features and raise common issue. The factual backdrop of the controversy relevant for the purpose of present revision petitions may be stated thus: pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) dt. 16-10-1982, lands of the revision petitioners and others were acquired. After due enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and Rs. 2,15,000/- (OP No. 204/87) Rs. 2,82,037/- (OP No. 202/87) for structures. On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court enhanced the market value at Rs. 35,000/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/- over and above the compensation awarded for structures in OP Nos. 253/87, 204/87, 202/87 and 61/87 respectively. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, claimants (revision petitioners) filed AS Nos. 1182/92, 1562/92, 1546/92 and 1732/91 and Land Acquisition Officer filed AS Nos. 464/93, 465/93, 407/93 and 1436/91. This court by its common judgment dt. 10-12-1998 in A. S. Nos. 1436/1991 and batch allowed the appeals filed by the claimants fixing the compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per acre in respect of S. Nos. 750, 751 and 752, Rs. 55,000/- per acre in respect of S. No. 753 and Rs. 60,000/- per acre regarding S. Nos. 766 (B) and 766 (C ). The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest from the date of taking possession of the land. Regarding entitlement of benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, additional amount will be given whenever the claimants are entitled to excluding the period during which the lands under acquisition are covered by stay order of the High Court or any other competent court. On allowing such appeals, revision petitioners filed EP Nos. 74, 73, 72 and 67 of 1998 respectively, which were ordered on 18-6-2002. The operative portion reads as under: the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer along with the interest is to be arrived at till the date of payment of original compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. On allowing such appeals, revision petitioners filed EP Nos. 74, 73, 72 and 67 of 1998 respectively, which were ordered on 18-6-2002. The operative portion reads as under: the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer along with the interest is to be arrived at till the date of payment of original compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 2 ) THE enhanced amount along with other benefits awarded by the trial Court is to be calculated keeping in view of the observations of the trial court in the decree. To the said amount interest is to be calculated till the date of payment made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The rest of the amount is due and payable by the judgment debtor to the decree holder. While calculating the amount, the judgment debtor has to calculate the interest on solatium and other benefits as ordered in the decree. The amount so arrived at shall be paid within one month from the date of the order. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said order, necessary calculation memos were filed by the parties. Accordingly, Eps were ordered directing the Judgment Debtor to deposit the differential amount as arrived at by the executing court in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Premnath Kapur v. National Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. ( 1996 (2) SCC 71 ). The effect of ordering deposit of the amount is that 30% solatium claimed on the additional market value under Section 23 (1-A) was not accepted and deducting the amount from the amount deposited and claiming interest on the balance amount which was deposited and deducting the same towards interest on the balance of all heads, i. e. , market value, solatium and additional market value was not permitted and accordingly directed to deposit the differential. ( 4 ) SRI Anjappa, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contends that claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% not only on the market value but also on the additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) and the interest can be calculated on the entire compensation including the market value, solatium and additional market value. Once the objection raised by the Judgment Debtor was rejected by the executing court by its order dt. Once the objection raised by the Judgment Debtor was rejected by the executing court by its order dt. 18-6-2002, directing to file calculation memos, the executing court cannot review its earlier order and the claimants are entitled to adjust the said amount deposited if any towards interest on solatium, and additional market value and they have rightly filed calculation memos claiming interest on the entire amount of compensation. ( 5 ) PER contra, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contends that solatium can be payable only on the market value on the land but no solatium can be payable on additional market value. Once the trial court confined the interest payable only on market value and solatium, claimants cannot claim interest on the additional market value. Once the amount deposited as per decree, the claimants cannot adjust the amount so deposited towards interest on principal amount, solatium and additional market value. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute, the Land Acquisition Officer, on enhancement of compensation made by the reference court, deposited the amount in the year 1991, and on disposals of the appeals, further amounts were deposited on 6-2-99, which were adjusted towards interest from the total arrived at by the decree holder and also interest on the balance of all heads i. e. , market value, solatium and additional market value. ( 7 ) SECTION 23 (1) envisages that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1 ). Section 23 (1-A) envisages that in addition to the market value of the land, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that in addition to the market value of the land the court shall in every case award 30% solatium on such market value. Section 28 provides awarding of interest. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that in addition to the market value of the land the court shall in every case award 30% solatium on such market value. Section 28 provides awarding of interest. If the reference court awards excess amount than awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer it can direct that Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which possession of the land taken to the date of payment of such excess into court, for a period of one year and 15% thereafter on such expiry of period of one year, when the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land. Section 34 fastens the liability on the Collector to pay interest on the amount awarded from the date of taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited and if such compensation is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, he is under an obligation to pay interest at 15% per annum. ( 8 ) IN the case of Prem Nath Kapur (1 supra), the Supreme Court after referring to the scheme of the Act in paras 12 and 13 held as under: it is clear from the scheme of the Act and the express language used in Sections 23 (1) and (2), 34 and 28 and now Section 23 (1-A) of the Act that each component is a distinct and separate one. When compensation is determined under Section 23 (1), its quantification, though made at different levels, the liability to pay interest thereon arises from the date on which the quantification was so made but, as stated earlier, it relates back to the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit of interest on such excess compensation into the court. Equally, when the appellate court under Section 54 further enhances the compensation, interest is payable on such excess amount determined under Section 23 (1 ). Equally, when the appellate court under Section 54 further enhances the compensation, interest is payable on such excess amount determined under Section 23 (1 ). In other words, the liability to pay interest arises as and when the compensation is further enhanced and liability to pay interest would be conterminous with the payment of the amount under Section 34 from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit or under Section 28 or Section 54 from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit of such excess amount into the court. The liability to pay interest is only on the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23 (1) and not on the amount already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 and paid to the party or deposited into the court or determined under Section 26 or Section 54 and deposited into the court or on solatium under Section 23 (2) and additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) (para 12) thus we hold that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under Section 23 (1) continues to subsist until it is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into court under Section 34 read with Section 31. Equally, the liability to pay interest on the excess amount of compensation determined by the Civil Court under Section 26 over and above the compensation determined by the Collector/land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 subsists until it is deposited into court. Proprio vigore in case of further enhancement of the compensation on appeal under Section 54 to the extent of the said enhanced excess amount or part thereof, the liability subsists until it is deposited into court. The liability to pay interest ceases on the date on which the deposit into court is made with the amount of compensation of the interest should be calculated from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit in terms of Section 34 or deposit into court in terms of Section 28, as the case may be. (para 13 ). ( 9 ) AFTER analyzing Sections 23 (1) and (2), 34 and 28 and 23 (1-A) of the Act, it was held that the right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. (para 13 ). ( 9 ) AFTER analyzing Sections 23 (1) and (2), 34 and 28 and 23 (1-A) of the Act, it was held that the right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest. ( 10 ) IN Sunder v. Union of India ( (2001) 7 SCC 211 ), the Constitution Bench while answering the reference, namely, Whether the State is liable to pay interest on the amount envisaged under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act?, in other words, the question was whether for the purpose of Section 28 r/w 34, solatium is a part of compensation held as under: section 26 does not say that the award would contain only the amounts granted under sub-section (1) of Section 23. The special mention of that sub-section in Section 26 is only for the purpose of directing that the grounds or reasons for awarding the amount under each of the clauses in the sub-section shall be specified in the award. It is unnecessary to mention any reason on ground in any award as to why the sums indicated in sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act were granted, because they are only the sequels or concomitant adjuncts of the determination of the total amount indicated in sub-section (1 ). No judicial exercise is required to quantify the sums mentioned in sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) because and section itself specifies the percentage to be worked out for the purpose of adding to the total amount arrived at under sub-section (1 ). Otherwise Section 26 is not intended to show that the compensation awarded would be bereft of the additional amount and the solatium envisaged under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2 ). This can be clearly discerned from the commencing words of Section 26 itself. They are: Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge. Otherwise Section 26 is not intended to show that the compensation awarded would be bereft of the additional amount and the solatium envisaged under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2 ). This can be clearly discerned from the commencing words of Section 26 itself. They are: Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge. What is referred to therein is Part III of the Act which comprises of a faciculus of twelve provisions starting with Section 18 and ending with Section 28-A of the Act. There can be no doubt that all the three heads specified in the three sub-sections in Section 23 are the sums to be awarded by the court. Hence the words every award under this Part cannot be treated as the award after delinking the amounts awarded under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) of Section 23. ( 11 ) FOR the purpose of awarding interest what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act, it was held that it is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay the compensation awarded which would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well and it is clear from Section 34 that the expression awarded amount would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23 including all the sub-sections thereof. ( 12 ) WHEN the reference court specifically awarded interest only on the market value and solatium, appeals filed by the petitioners were allowed declaring that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest from the date of taking possession of the land and benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act will be given whenever the claimants are entitled to excluding the period during which the lands under acquisition are covered by stay order of this court or any other competent court. Payment of interest on additional compensation is a statutory benefit. Since it forms part of award amount for the purpose of calculation of interest as held by the Apex Court in Sundar (2 supra), the petitioners are entitled to interest on such award amount, namely, principal amount, solatium and additional market value. Payment of interest on additional compensation is a statutory benefit. Since it forms part of award amount for the purpose of calculation of interest as held by the Apex Court in Sundar (2 supra), the petitioners are entitled to interest on such award amount, namely, principal amount, solatium and additional market value. The Supreme Court after considering the ratio laid down in the case of Sundar (2 supra) in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao ( (2002) 7 SCC 657 ) held that interest is payable even on the sum payable under Sec. 23 (1-A) if the award is after 30-4-1982. Since the High Court specifically observed that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest from the date of taking possession, the petitioners are entitled to interest on such amount from the date of taking possession till it is deposited into the court. ( 13 ) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to solatium on the additional market value cannot be accepted since the amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) is not the component of the compensation but it is only a component of the award for the purpose of calculation of interest only. Since the Eps are pending on the date when Sundars case (2 supra) is decided by the Supreme Court, it is held that the claimants are entitled to interest only on the compensation awarded including additional market value under Section 23 (1-A) from the date of taking possession till it is deposited into the court. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated above.