The Special Tahsildar, v. N. Pandiaraj

ORDER This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.08.2022 passed in E.P.No.12 of 2013 in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 2001 by the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.

2.According to the revision petitioner, the respondent/claimant filed LAOP No.22 of 2013 for enhancement of the award of compensation of Rs.5,400/- per acre(Rs.13,338/- per hectare) for the acquisition of the land measuring 0.31.5 hectares belonging to him in S.No.53/1. The same was awarded, by fixing the value at Rs.800/- per cent, vide order dated

28.06.2002. Against which, the Department filed an appeal suit in A.S.No. 701 of 2003 along with C.M.P.No.11871 of 2003, in which, interim stay was ordered by this Court, on 04.11.203, pursuant to which, the Department had deposited 50% of the award amount at Rs.3,6,689/- as early as on

05.04.2005. (Total aggregate was Rs.7,35,377/-). Thereafter, the said appeal suit was dismissed on 21.10.2010 confirming the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the interest was calculated from 07.04.1995 to 05.04.2005 (ie., the date on which the 50% amount was deposited) and the total aggregate was arrived at Rs.9,00,600/- on 21.10.2010 (dismissal of the A.S filed by the Department). Hence, the remaining amount of Rs.5,32,912/- (Rs. 9,00,600 – Rs.3,67,68 ) to be awarded to the claimant and the same was deposited before the Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar on 14.08.2012 based on the G.O(Ms)No.3(D), Backward Classes and Minority Welfare(2), dated

18.06.2012, But after obtaining the said amount, the claimant filed an execution petition No.12 of 2013 in LAOP No.22 of 2001 for calculating interest from 05.04.2005 till date and the same was allowed. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought not to have adjudicated the dispute of calculation of interest in the execution petition, when the said amount was paid to the claimant on 14.08.2012 based on G.O, dated 18.06.2012. As per G.O., dated 11.03.2005, the method for working out enhanced compensation had been followed and the amounts were paid to other claimant, who were placed in similar situation like respondent/claimant herein. The respondent/claimant failed to challenge the said method before the appropriate forum. Without striking down the method framed by the Government passing of the impugned order in the execution petition dated 23.08.2022, would be a travesty of justice. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law regarding the adjustment of the amount deposited that has to be first adjusted towards the amount due for the market value, solatium and then towards the additional market value as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be followed. Therefore, the order passed in E.P.No.12 of 2023 in LAOP No.22 of 2001 is liable to be set aside.

4.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submitted that following the ratio laid down in Prem Nath Kapur case, on appropriation being at different stages is justified through if at a particular stage there is a short fall, the awardee decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on general principles of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless of course, the decree otherwise directs. To support his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions case:

(i)In Gurpreet Singh-Vs-Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC

457.

(ii)In K.G.Krishnamoorthi and Others-Vs-The Sub-Collector, Pollachi, reported in 2015(1) MWN (Civil) 609.

5.Therefore, he would submit that following the ratio laid down in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited case and Prem Nath Kapur case(cited supra), whenever amount is deposited, interest has to be first adjusted and only thereafter the balance amount has to be given credit to towards the principal amount.

6.On the side of the respondent, calculation memo has been filed, which is extracted hereunder: nkw;go kDtpy; Rl;Lif mjpfhhp 13.11.2017y; jhf;fy; bra;j bjhif tpyh $hgpjhtpw;F jhf;fy; bra;a[k; gjpy; bjhif tptu $hgpjh tptuk;: Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l 1.35.0 bamf;nlh; (3.33 Vf;fh; Rs. 2,66,760.00 epyq;fSf;F ePjpkd;w cj;jput[g;go brz;L 1f;F U:. 800/-tPjk; nkw;go bjhiff;F 30% MWjy; bjhif Rs. 80,028.00 Mjpy; U:.2,66,760/- f;F 4(1) mwptpf;if Rs. 26,047.46 njjpahd 04.06.1993ypUe;J mthh;L njjpahd

29.03.1994 tiu 297 ehl;fSf;F 12% TLjy; bjhif bkhj;jj; bjhif Rs. 3,72,835.46 jPh;tg;go epy vLg;g[ mYtyh; Vw;fdnt tHq;fg;gl;l Rs. 25,178.00 bjhif bkhj;j ghf;fpj; bjhif Rs. 3,47,657.46 nkw;go bjhifahd U:.347657.46f;F RthjPdk; Rs. 31,289.17 vLj;j njjpahd 07.04.1994 Kjy; 06.04.1995 Koa 1 tUlj;jpw;F 9% tl;o of;fphpg;go bjhifahd U:.347657.46f;F Rs. 5,21,051.61

07.04.1995 Kjy; 04.04.2005 Koa khjk; 119 ehl;fs; 27f;F 15 rjtPjk; tl;o epy vLg;g[ mYtyh; TLjy; khtl;l ePjpkd;w Rs. 899998.24 jPh;g;g[g;go tHq;f ntz;oa bkhj;j ghf;fp bjhid mjpy; 05.04.2005y; muR blghrpl; bra;j bjhif Rs. 367689.00 epy vLg;g[ 05.04.2005y; brYj;jpa bjhif nghf Rs. 532309.24 brYj;j ntz;oa ghf;fp bjhif gpd;g[ nkw;go epYit bjhifahd U5: 32255.66y ; Rs. 383582.05 jPhtg;go cz;lhd U:.347657.46f;F 05.04.2005 Kjy; 13.08.2012 Koa khjk; 88 ehl;fs; 8f;F 15 rjtPjk; tl;o epy vLg;g[ mYtyh; brYj;j ntz;oa bkhj;j ghf;fpj ; Rs. 915891.29 bjhif Kd;gf;fg;go Rs. 915891.29 nkw;go ghf;fp bjhiff;F epy vLg;g[ mYtyh; Rs. 532912.00

14.08.2012y; blghrpl; bra;j bjhif ghf;fp brYj;j ntz;oa bjhif Rs. 382979.29 mjw;F U:.347657.46f;F 14.08.2012 Kjy; Rs. 543786.27

18.01.2023 Koa khjk; 125 ehl;fs; 4f;F 15 rjtPjk; tl;o ghf;fp brYj;j ntz;oa bjhif Rs. 925765.56 nkw;go epy vLg;g[ mYtyh; 14.08.2012k; njjp brYj;jpa bjhif nghf ghf;fp brYj;j ntz;oa epYit bjhifahd epYit bjhif mry; nkw;go bjhiff;F 19.01.2023 Kjy; bjhif brYj;Jk; njjptiu 15 rjtPjk; tl;o nrh;j;J."

7.The revision petitioner has not raised any objection to the calculation memo filed by the respondent/claimant. There is nothing on record to discard the calculation memo filed by the respondent and the same is accepted.

8.Relying the principles laid down in the cited case by the learned counsel for the respondent no infirmity found in the order passed by the Executing Court. As the case is pending quite a long time, this Court feels that instead of remanding the matter to the Court below, the calculation memo filed by the respondent is accepted and to give a quietus to this case, there will be a direction to the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,25,765.56/- mentioned above towards compensation payable to the respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the period of two months as ordered above, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the amount with future interest at the rate of 15% per month.

10.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.09.2023 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns To

1.The Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. Ns C.R.P(MD)No.2262 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.10616 of 2022

08.09.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 19.07.2023 Delivered on : 08.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.R.P(MD)No.2262 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.10616 of 2022 The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Adi Dravidar Welfare Virudhunagar. ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs. N.Pandiaraj ...Respondent/Petitioner Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the dismissal order passed in E.P.No.12 of 2013 in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 2001 dated 23.08.2022 on the file of the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar and set aside the same. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Suriyanath, Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent :Mr.A.Sivaji