Sugunadevi vs The Collector of Chennai, The Tahsildar and The Executive Engineer, Highways Department

K. Venkataraman, J.—The petitioner had come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for a mandamus, directing the respondents to enhance the compensation payable together with interest in respect of the acquisition of the petitioner''s property bearing Old Door No. 75, New No. 4. Valmiki Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question is a patta land owned by her husband, who died in the year 1972 and thereafter, the property was enjoyed by her and her children. While so, on 17.8.2002 the respondents forcibly vacated her family from the said premises for the purpose of widening the road without adopting the due process of law. Immediately, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 34014 of 2002. This Court by an order dated 14.11.2002, directed the first respondent herein to assess the compensation both for the land and building and to settle the compensation.

Aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2337 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 8.8.2006 dismissed the said Writ Appeal. Thereafter, since the respondents did not comply with the original order dated 14.11.2002 passed in W.P. No. 34014 of 2002, she was constrained to file a Contempt Petition in C.P. No. 190 of 2007. During the pendency of the said Contempt Petition, the third respondent herein in its proceedings dated 28.1.2008, stated that the first respondents had given a proposal to work out the value of the land and building together with interest at 12% per annum payable for the acquisition of the land owned by her. However by he said proceedings, the third respondent herein stated that no interest could be payable to the land owner. Thereafter, the petitioner was paid the compensation by way of cheque dated 19.3.2008.

The petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation and the interest, since the respondents have not considered the same, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

Counter affidavit had been filed on Behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been evicted out that after due notice to the petitioner, she had been evicted and later the compensation amount had been paid. The petitioner is only the encroacher and hence she is not entitled for any interest. Further, the Act does not provide for any interest on Compensation. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had made submissions basing on the pleadings referred to above. The Petitioner claims that the property in question, which was acquired by the on the death of her husband, who was the original owner. She had been forcibly evicted from the premises on 17.8.2002 without following the due process of law. Hence, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 34014 of 2002. Thus, the petitioner claims that the property in question is a patta land and the respondents forcibly evicted the petitioner from the property in question. However by relying upon the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is only an encroacher and not the owner of the property. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The reason being that when the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 33110 and 34014 of 2002, this Court by an order dated 14.11.2002 had clearly held that the petitioners are not encroachers and they have been affirmed in the Writ Appeal filed by the third respondent in Writ Appeal. No. 2337 of 2003 by an order dated 8.8.2006. Thus, when this Court had already held that the petitioner is not an encroacher, she has vested interest over the property in question. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, that the petitioner is an encroacher.

Then the next question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the interest on the belated payment of compensation. In the counter affidavit, a specific plea had been taken out by the respondents that the Act does not provide for payment of interest on compensation. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents also put forth the said plea. However, I am unable to accept the said contentions made on behalf of the respondents, since Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 contemplates payment of interest. Section 24 of the Act is usefully extracted herein:

When the amount is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Government shall pay the amount determined with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.

Further more the District Collector had also recommended for payment of 12% interest to the owners of the property who have been evicted for the purpose of widening of the road.

The present Writ Petition, though, filed for enhancement of the compensation and for the award of the interest, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would restrict the claim regarding interest alone.

The narration of the above facts would clearly show that the petitioner is the owner of the property and had been evicted from the property in question for widening up the road. The petitioner was evicted from the premises forcibly on 17.8.2002 and the compensation had been paid only on 19.3.2008. The respondents are bound to pay interest to the petitioner for such belated payment on compensation. The respondents are directed to pay 9% interest from the date (19.3.2008) the petitioner was evicted from the property till the payment to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to settle the entire amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.