AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is the same person in both the writ petitions as well as in the contempt petition. The Petitioner first filed
W.P.NO. 17067 of 2004 before this Court (Principal Bench) seeking to challenge G.O.Ms. No. 70, Revenue Department, dated 30.1.2003
passed by the State Government as well as the consequential notices issued by the District Collector, dated 16.12.2003 and 14.2.2004 and to set
aside the same.
Earlier, the Government issued G.O.NO. 683, Revenue Department (L.A.-I(1), dated 21.7.1997 to the effect that the claimants in the land
acquisition cases were not entitled for interest on the 30% solatium and 12% additional amount awarded u/s 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration was directed to instruct the District Collectors and
Land Acquisition Officers to adhere to the said G.O. but subsequently on noting that the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India, , the
Government issued the revised G.O. vide G.O.Ms. No. 70, Revenue Deparment, dated 30.1.2003 and permitted interest on the compensation
and solatium and the earlier G.O. was cancelled. While doing so, in the impugned G.O. in paragraph 3, the Government ordered as follows:
The Government accordingly direct that in supersession of the orders issued in G.O. read above, in the land acquisition cases a person entitled
to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium and
additional market value awarded and that this will apply to all pending cases on the date of judgment of the Supreme Court of India and not earlier.
(Emphasis added)
By the consequential proceedings, the Petitioner was informed that he had been paid interest on the solatium and additional amount erroneously
disregarding the G.O. and, therefore, directed him to refund the excess amount of Rs. 7,54,094.25 within 7 days. The Petitioner sent a legal notice
questioning the recovery but there was No. reply.
The said writ petition was admitted on 23.6.2004. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. When a vacate stay application
was filed being WVMP.NO. 265 of 2007, the interim stay was made absolute on 13.9.2007. It must be noted that the Petitioner not only received
the compensation in the capacity of the legal heir of the original land owner, but he was also working as the Village Administrative Officer..
Therefore, he was given a notice asking for refund of the amount and failing which he was also threatened with departmental action and he was
placed under suspension by an order, dated 30.3.2007. The Petitioner was to reach the age of superannuation on 31.3.2007 and in order to
continue with the enquiry on the alleged grave charges apart from suspension, he was retained in service under FR 56(1).
Taking exception to the said action, the Petitioner preferred contempt petition No. 903 of 2007 seeking to punish the then District Collector,
Thoothukudi and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchendur. In that contempt petition, the Respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated
14.11.2007 justifying their action. It was also stated that the Petitioner has corrected the certified copies of the order issued by this Court. In the
meanwhile, challenging the order of suspension and the order refusing to permit the Petitioner to retire, each dated 30.3.2007, the Petitioners
moved the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).NO. 3287 of 2007. That writ petition was directed to be transferred to the Principal Bench
to be heard along with the earlier writ petition. Thus, it is before this Court.
In view of the inter-connectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together and the contempt was also tagged along with the two
writ petitions.
It is seen from the records that one Sankaravadivu Ammal, the land owner, whose lands were acquired under the Central Act 1 of 1894 was
paid compensation. She was not satisfied with the compensation. Therefore, a reference was made to the jurisdictional Reference Court. The
jurisdictional Reference Court took up the case as L.A.O.P.NO. 15 of 1987 and enhanced the compensation by an order, dated 04.7.1989. By
the aforesaid order, the Reference Court held that for the acquisition of 4 hectares 88 cents of land, compensation should be paid at the rate of Rs.
350/-per cent and against the total compensation, the land owner should be paid 30; solatium together with interest at the rate of 9%. The
enhanced compensation was paid to the Petitioner being the son of Late Sankaravadivu Ammal amounting to a sum of Rs. 19,53,819/-. The
appeal was filed by the said Sankaravadivu Ammal in A.S.NO. 1209 of 1989 against LAOP.15 of 1987 dated 04.7.1989. It was during the
pendency of the appeal suit, the said Sankaravadivu Ammal died and the Petitioner took out application in CMP.NO. 10519 of 1998 to implead
himself as Appellant. That CMP was ordered by this Court on 30.11.1999. The said appeal was subsequently allowed by this Court vide
judgment dated 04.1.2001. In that order, this Court ordered as follows:
...The judgment of the Court below is therefore set aside. The compensation is fixed at Rs. 700/-per cent. The Appellant is also entitled to
solatium at the rate of 30% and an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of entering into the Land, i.e. 05.07.1980 to the
date of taking possession i.e. 15.12.1982. The Appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of
entering into the land i.e. 05.07.1980 to 04.07.1981 and interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 05.07.1981 to the date of disbursement.
Appeal is therefore allowed with costs.
At this stage, the then Special Tahsildar was chargesheeted under Rule 17A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
dated 16.12.2003. The Tahsildar was accused of granting compensation higher than what was entitled in terms of G.O.NO. 638, Revenue dated
21.7.1997. The contention was that interest on solatium cannot be given.
The three questions arises for consideration are, 1) whether the Petitioner being the legal heir of the land owner was entitled to get compensation
including interest on the solatium? 2) whether he can be chargesheeted for non-payment of the alleged excess payment? 3) Whether the allegation
that he has committed perjury by correcting the orders of the Court is legally valid?
On the first question regarding the compensation, the matter relating to payment of interest on solatium came to be referred for authoritative
pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India reported in 2001 (4) CTC 434. In that case in paragraphs 26 to 28, the
Supreme Court ordered as follows:
G. Venkatesh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1975 Kar.95, B. Ravinder Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
(Industries), Hyderabad, , State of Haryana Vs. Kailashwati and Others, and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Muniswamy Reddy AIR 1993 Kar.
77.
We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in State of Haryana Vs. Kailashwati and Others, .
Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for u/s 23(2) of the Act forms and integral and statutory part of the compensation
awarded to a landowner, then, from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation
awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of 9.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in
terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable u/s 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market
value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on
solatium as well.
In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence, the person entitled to the
compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly.
The Constitution Bench did not grant any direction that the judgment should apply prospectively but it only reiterated the correct legal principle.
After analyzing the difference of opinion expressed by various High Courts and it agreed with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in State of Haryana Vs. Kailashwati and Others, . As seen from the above and therefore it is needless to state that the land owner whose lands
were acquired is entitled to get interest on solatium and the additional compensation. It is only because of the same, G.O.Ms. No. 683, Revenue,
dated 21.7.1997 was rescinded and G.O.Ms. No. 70, Revenue, dated 30.1.2003 was issued. But, while issuing the said G.O. the Government
cannot state that it will not apply to the case, which was rendered before the judgment of the Supreme Court. That was the illegal stand adopted
by the State Government and, therefore, the Petitioner was paid correct payment by the authorities and there was No. excess payment.
Once the Petitioner was paid correct compensation, the question of recovering any amount from his pay will not arise and non-payment will
not result in any disciplinary action and recovery of the amount. Therefore, the other proceedings initiated against the Petitioner must necessarily
fail.
There has been a desperate attempt by the Respondents to accuse the Petitioner as if he had corrected the court records. As correctly stated
by the counsel for the Petitioner that there was No. correction made by the court records and this Court had verified the certified copy of the
order. The earlier omission in not including the name of the Petitioner had been corrected by the court and the revised order was issued and
therefore there is No. difference in the earlier order communicated as well as the revised order issued by this Court.
In the result, W.P.NO. 17067 of 2004 is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. W.P.(MD) No. 3287 of 2007 stands allowed and the
impugned order dated 30.3.2007 in retaining the Petitioner in service and also suspending him pending disciplinary action is hereby set aside and
the Petitioner is entitled for pension and other terminal benefits. No. costs.
In view of the order passed in the two writ petitions, it is unnecessary to pursue the contempt and this Court is not inclined to punish the
Respondents since for genuine wrong understanding about the application of the Supreme Court judgment in Sunder''s case. Hence, the contempt
petition stand dismissed.