O.A.K. Nachimuthu (Dead) by LR. & Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Tamil Nadu
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6574 of 1994
Petitioner: O.A.K. Nachimuthu (Dead) by LR. & Ors.
Respondent: Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, Tamil Nadu
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6574 of 1994
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 17, 2001
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Compensation – Initial at Rs. 1.35 per sq. ft. – Reference Court enhancing to Rs. 3.20 per sq. ft. – Before High Court, claim made for Rs. 7.00 per sq,ft. – High Court deciding at Rs. 5.00 per sq.ft. Held that the amount was reasonable and was fixed on due consideration. Liberty given to approach the Collector on ques-tion of interest on solatium, if question is decided by larger Bench.
Held:
On a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the judgment, the Court has assessed the compen-sation of Rs. 5.00 sq.ft. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonably low and warrants interference by this Court. It is not possible to deter-mine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assess-ment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guess work. The approach of the High Court is fair and reason-able. No interference with decision rendered by the High Court is called for. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Kapur Chand Jain (Dead) & Ors. v. State Government of H.P. and Ors. (1999 (2) SCC 89) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. An area of 83,474 sq. st. of land situated on the outskirts of the town of Erode was acquired by the notification dated 14th March, 1973, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) for the construction of LIG and MIG houses. Possession of the land was taken over in December, 1980. The Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.35 per sq.ft. vide the Award dated 30th December, 1980. Not satisfied with the amount offered, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and on such reference, the Land Tribunal, Erode, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 3.20 per sq. ft. vide the judgment dated 27th April, 1984. The appellants carried matter in appeal to the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Before the High Court as noted in the judgment Rs. 7.00 per sq. ft. was claimed. The High Court on assessing the material on record further enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 5.00 per sq.ft. Hence, this appeal by the claimants.
3. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri S. Balakrishnan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, is that from the material on record it is clear that the rate of compensation fixed by the High Court is on the lower side; the appellants are entitled to a higher rate of compensation, at least Rs. 7.00 per sq.ft.. He drew our attention to a judgment rendered by the High Court shortly before the decision in the present case, in which land acquired by a notification issued on the same day, for the similar purpose was assessed at Rs. 8.50 per sq.ft.
4. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. We find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the judgment, the Court has assessed the compen-sation of Rs. 5.00 sq.ft. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonably low and warrants interference by this Court. It is not possible to deter-mine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assess-ment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guess work. We do not find that the judgment under challenge suffers from any serious illegality. The approach of the High Court is fair and reasonable. No interference with decision rendered by the High Court is called for.
5. Then, Shri Balakrishnan raised the question that the appell-ants are entitled to interest on the solatium amount which has not been granted by the reference court and also by the High Court. He drew our attention to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kapur Chand Jain (Dead) & Ors. v. State Government of H.P. and Ors. (1999 (2) SCC 89) wherein the question of Award of interest on solatium has been referred for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the different views expressed by different Benches of this Court, as noted in the order. Shri Balakrishnan also submitted that if it is held that interest is to be paid on solatium also then this Court should grant leave to the claimant-appellants to make a claim for the interest on the solatium amount. The submission is reason-able. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge, we make it clear that if it is held that claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium under law it will be open to the appellants in this case to raise a claim in that regard before the Land Acquisition Collector.
6. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.
7. No costs.
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. An area of 83,474 sq. st. of land situated on the outskirts of the town of Erode was acquired by the notification dated 14th March, 1973, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) for the construction of LIG and MIG houses. Possession of the land was taken over in December, 1980. The Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.35 per sq.ft. vide the Award dated 30th December, 1980. Not satisfied with the amount offered, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and on such reference, the Land Tribunal, Erode, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 3.20 per sq. ft. vide the judgment dated 27th April, 1984. The appellants carried matter in appeal to the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Before the High Court as noted in the judgment Rs. 7.00 per sq. ft. was claimed. The High Court on assessing the material on record further enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 5.00 per sq.ft. Hence, this appeal by the claimants.
3. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri S. Balakrishnan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, is that from the material on record it is clear that the rate of compensation fixed by the High Court is on the lower side; the appellants are entitled to a higher rate of compensation, at least Rs. 7.00 per sq.ft.. He drew our attention to a judgment rendered by the High Court shortly before the decision in the present case, in which land acquired by a notification issued on the same day, for the similar purpose was assessed at Rs. 8.50 per sq.ft.
4. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. We find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the judgment, the Court has assessed the compen-sation of Rs. 5.00 sq.ft. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is unreasonably low and warrants interference by this Court. It is not possible to deter-mine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assess-ment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guess work. We do not find that the judgment under challenge suffers from any serious illegality. The approach of the High Court is fair and reasonable. No interference with decision rendered by the High Court is called for.
5. Then, Shri Balakrishnan raised the question that the appell-ants are entitled to interest on the solatium amount which has not been granted by the reference court and also by the High Court. He drew our attention to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kapur Chand Jain (Dead) & Ors. v. State Government of H.P. and Ors. (1999 (2) SCC 89) wherein the question of Award of interest on solatium has been referred for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the different views expressed by different Benches of this Court, as noted in the order. Shri Balakrishnan also submitted that if it is held that interest is to be paid on solatium also then this Court should grant leave to the claimant-appellants to make a claim for the interest on the solatium amount. The submission is reason-able. Therefore, while declining to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge, we make it clear that if it is held that claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium under law it will be open to the appellants in this case to raise a claim in that regard before the Land Acquisition Collector.
6. With the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.
7. No costs.
