Travancore-Cochin State vs Chacko Alexander and Others

Suuramonia Iyer, J.—This appeal arises in execution in a Land Acquisitlon matter. The only question relates to interest and that arises in the following circumstances. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs. 300/- per cent and Rs. 4000/- odd for the buildings acquired. The Respondent who was the owner had no objection regarding the value of the buildings but took exception to the award of land value as insufficient and applied for reference to the District Court which was accordingly made.

The District Court enhanced land value to Rs. 1200/- per cent. In appeal presented to the High Court by the State the land value was fixed at Rs. 700/- per cent., i.e., Rs. 400 in excess of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

To the execution petition presented by Respondent in the Court below the State filed written objection wherein it was stated in para 1 that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was deposited by the State before that offiicer''s office and that it was actually drawn by the Respondent on 20-5-1109. The enhanced amount allowed by the High Court was afterwards deposited by the State in Covert and it was drawn therefrom by the Respondent.

In answer to the objection the Respondent filed a statement in the Court below to the effect that withdrawal of the money from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer was not on 20-5-1109 bu; was only on 20-5-1112. The question of the quantum of interest payable depends upon the date on which that amount was drawn. There is no finding entered by the Court below on this question which, is one of fact and which has to be found upon evidence.

Another contention raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that apart from the question of withdrawing the amount the Respondent is not entitled to interest from the date when the money was tendered to the Respondent under the provisions of Section 28, Travancore Land Acquicsition Act. The position taken up by the learned Government Pleader is that even though anenhancement may be allowed by the Court it is obligatory upon the owner of land acquired to accept the tender of whatever is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

We cannot agree with this contention because the proviso to Section 28 is to the effect that he may withdraw the money under protest and that if he does not protest at the time of receipt he will be precluded from questioning the correctness of the amount awarded. It is clear, therefore, that it is a privilege conferred upon the owner of the land to receive or not to receive the price awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer when he has a complaint that the award is too short.

Interest payable u/s 31 is upon compensation, i.e., upon the compensation that is ultimately found to be due for the land acquired. If the amount awarded by the officer is confirmed by the Court no question arises. If, however, the amount awarded has been enhanced by the Court as in this case; then, the tender made by the officer of what was awarded by him would necessarily be incomplete and no creditor is bound to accept a partial tender.

The Respondent will, therefore, be titled to get interest until the time when the money due to him was paid to him. The order of the Court below is reversed and the case remanded to that Court for fresh disposal after recording a finding as to the time when the amount was drawn by the Respondent. The Respondent will be entitled to interest at 6 per cent until the date when he drew the money. The costs here'' will abide the result and will be provided for by the Court below in its order.

The appeal is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside.