Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1847 (MAD)

Kandasamy v. District Collector, Salem

2011-03-31

T.RAJA

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner Kadasamy has come forward to this court by filing the present writ petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded for the lands acquired from the petitioner i.e, 0.87.5 hectares (2.16 Acres) in S.No.248/282 in Manjakkalpatty Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District with interest at 15%p.a as per section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made two submissions : Firstly, the petitioner was the owner of the land in S.No.248/282 in Manjakkalpatty Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, but the respondents have acquired the said land for providing house sites to Dhobies of Sankari Town by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. After issuing 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.(3D) 22 dated 17.03.1994, declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 24.04.1995. Even though in the 4(1) notification, the petitioner's name was stated as the owner of the land, the respondents have not issued any notice and the petitioner was kept in dark throughout the proceedings. When the petitioner approached the Village Administrative Officer of Manjakkalapatty Village on 07.04.2008 for the purpose of getting some revenue records in respect of the above said land, the petitioner came to know about the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner issued a legal notice calling upon the 2nd respondent to give particulars of the award, if any, passed under the land acquisition Act in respect of his lands. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent passed an award in No.12/95-96 dated 15.03.1996 fixing the compensation as Rs.2,01,476/-, but the compensation amount was not paid to the petitioner by the District Collector. As per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, he has simply deposited the said amount in the Revenue Deposit. If the respondent deposited the amount as per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner would have enjoyed the interest from the amount deposited in the reference court where the reference would lie under section 18 of the Act, but the respondents wrongly deposited in the treasury. Thus, the petitioner has lost the interest which would have otherwise accrued on deposit of award amount in the year 1986. Thus, the petitioner has lost the interest which would have otherwise accrued on deposit of award amount in the year 1986. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in a similar situation, both this court as well as the Supreme Court in an identical issue held that the deposit made by the District Collector in Treasury cannot be considered as deposit in reference court, where the reference would lie under section 18 of the Act. By relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court, he prayed for direction to the District Collector to pay the amount of compensation as fixed in the award along with the interest as per section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit, wherein the respondents after admitting the factum of acquisition of petitioner's land covered in S.No.248/2B2 measuring 0.87.5 hectares (2.14 acres) of land, further submitted that the award copy was sent to the petitioner through the Village Administrative Officer, Manjakkalapatty Village. But the petitioner refused to receive the same, but he has filed the writ petition for enhancement of compensation after the lapse of 12 years. The petitioner did not appear for enquiry, though he received notice and hence, the entire compensation amount of Rs.2,01,476/- was kept under revenue deposit. On this submission, it was contended that no infirmity can be found against the petitioner in depositing the compensation in its Revenue deposits. 4. Admittedly, after the award was passed when the petitioner refused to receive the award, the District Collector as per Sections 31(2) and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act should have deposited the award amount of Rs.2,01,476/- in the reference court as held by this court in WP.No.35233 of 2007 dated 14.03.2008 directing the respondents to pay the amount of compensation as fixed in award No.12/95-96 dated 15.03.1996 along with interest as per section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Admittedly, it is clear in the case on hand that the award has already been passed on 15.03.1996 fixing the compensation of Rs.2,01,476/-. The case of the respondents is that the said award amount was wrongly deposited in the revenue deposit. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether such deposit in the revenue deposit can be a proper compliance of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the respondents is that the said award amount was wrongly deposited in the revenue deposit. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether such deposit in the revenue deposit can be a proper compliance of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. This issue has already decided by this Court in W.P.No.35233 of 2007, dated 14.03.2008, wherein this Court, after analyzing Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, finally, concluded that if the Collector fails to pay the money or deposit the award amount in Court as provided by Section 34, the liability is that of the Government and not of the land owner. Further, it was held that the Collector, before taking possession of the land, has to pay or deposit the amount awarded as stated in Section 31 of the Act, failing which he is liable to pay interest as provided in Section 34. On that score, I am of the view that the observation made by this Court in the above mentioned order is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. 5. It is also informed to this Court that the rate of interest is 9% for the first one year and thereafter 15% is made applicable in respect of the awards passed on or after 30.04.1984. Before that date, the rate of interest was 4% for the first year and 6% thereafter. But, as per the provisions of Sections 31(2) and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner is certainly entitled to interest as per the law that existed at the time of passing the award as well as taking possession. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pay the entire amount of compensation of Rs.2,01,476/- as per the award No.12/95-96, dated 15.03.1996, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest as per Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. 6. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.