The Project Director v. Ettikan

ORDER Challenging the order made in REP No.61 of 2021 in LAOP No.15 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Namakkal, dated

08.11.2023, this Civil Revision has been filed.

¶2The first respondent,namely, Ettikan is the petitioner in REP No.61 of 2021 in LAOP No.15 of 1997 on the file of thel Additional Subordinate Court, Namakkal and the Revision Petitioner, who is the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Uniot(NS), Salem, the third respondent .

¶3The fact of the case is that the National Highways Authority of India

(NHAI) a Statutory Authority established under the (Act 68 of 1988) National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, to develop, maintain and manage the National Highways had undertaken several National Highways Projects in the State. For that project, an extent of 44.81.5 Hec. of lands were aquired for formation of Namakkal Bypass Road having a length of 8.4 km. The Bypass is passing through five villages,viz., Vallipuram, Mudalaipatti, Thummankurichi, Ayyampalayam Agraharam and Nallipalayam. An extent of

11.47.0 Hec. of lands were acquired from Vallipuram Village by the Special Tahsildar(land Acquisition,) Namakkal under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894(herein after referred as "LA Act 1984"). The above acquisition was made by the Divisional Engineer, (Nationl Highways) Salem/third respondent, functioning under contol of the State Government of Tamilnadu. Subsequently, the above work was taken up by NHAI represented by the petitioer herein. The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) Namakkal/2nd respondent herein, after following due procedure prescribed under the LA Act of 1894 passed award in Award No.3/95, dated 29.09.1995 for an extent of

11.47.0 Hec. of land in Vallipuram Village and had fixed the market value of land at Rs.58,823/- per Hec. for dry lands and Rs.61,475/- per Hec. for irrigated dry land. An extent of 10759.32 sq.ft of land owned by the first respondent/land owner has been acquired by the second respondent/ LAO., for which, a sum of Rs.9,021/- has been paid to the first respondent/ land owner. Not being satisfied with the same, the first respondent/land owner filed a reference under Section 18 of LA Act, 1894 in L.A.O.P.No15/97 before the Sub-Court, Namakkal for enhancement of compensation and the compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs.100/- per sq.ft. Against which, The respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.726 of 2004, in which, this Court by an order dated 12.07.2004 in CMP No10864 of 2004 directed them to deposit 50% of the decree amount to the credit of the LAOP Nos.11 to 15 of 1997. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.14,04,048/- was deposited in the Sub-Court, Namakkal on 09.10.2004. The said appeal was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2010, by setting aside the order of the sub-court, Namakkal and remitted back for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent in the LAOP and the Sub-Court, Namakkal vide its order dated 27.04.2012 fixed the compensation at Rs.80/- per sq.ft.. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.527 of 2015 before this Court and this vide its order dated 22.03.2018 fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.67/- per sq.ft. In compliance with the above order dated 22.03.2018, the revision petitioner herein got the calculation sheet from the second respondent and deposited a balance amount of R.11,03,228/- before the Sub-Court, Namakkal on 21.01.2021 vide D.D.Nos.1559567, 155958 & 155959. In the said LAOP No.15 of 1997, The first respondent/ land owner filed a petition in REP No.61 of 2021 before the Sub-Court, Namakkal and the same was allowed on 08.11.2023. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is liable to pay the further interest on the enhanced amount only up to the date of payment. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.14,04,048/- on 09.10.2004 as per the order of this Court dated 12.07.2004 in respect of LAOP No.15/1997. The learned judge failed to consider the deposited amount of Rs.14,04,048/-, which is more than the enhanced market value of land at Rs.67/- per sq.ft. with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount as per Section 23(1A) of LA Act, 1894 for an extent of 10759.32 sq.ft of land acquired from the 1st respondent after deducting the amount of Rs.9021/- awarded by the second respondent herein.

¶5He would further contend that the Revenue Department of the Tamil Nadu Government vide its letter dated 558/L1(1)/05-2, dated 11.03.2005 has issued instructions based on the ruling of the Hon'ble Suprement Court in Prem N.Kapoor and another /vs/ National Fetilizer Corporation of India and others, according to which, interim deposit made by the requisitioining body is to be first adjusted towards the amount due to the market value (i.e. Land value,) solatium and then towards the amount payable under Section 23(1A) i.e. Additional market value, of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 and thereafter interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶6He would also submit that the learned Judge has also failed to consider the fact that the full amount due to the first respondent/land owner has been deposited by the revision petitioner on 21.01.2021, and erroneously ordered the interest amount of Rs.11,30,699.10/- for the period from

23.01.2021 (deposit of full amount by the revision petitioner) till the date of order i.e.08.11.2023, at the rate of 15% per annum. Law is well settled that once the full compensation amout under LA Act, 1894 due to the claimant is deposited in the Court, there shall not be any interest liability on the acquiring body since the land owner will be entitled for the withdrawal of amount with accumulated interest thereon. However, the learned Judge has directed the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.38,30,765.65/- on or before

08.12.2023, failing which restraint proceedings will be initiated against movable properties of the petitioner. Therefore, pleaded to set aside the impugned order and allow the revision.

¶7The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and further contended that the impugned order is in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and another /vs/ National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., and others reported in 1996 (2) SCC 71 and also in accordance with the case reported in 2006(8) SCC page 457( Gurpreet Singh /vs/ Union of India). There is no illegality in the order passed by the Courts below and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and thus, pleaded to dismiss the revision.

¶8This Court considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record carefully.

¶9For easy understanding the final order passed by this Court in A.S.No.527 of 2015 on 22.03.2018 is reproduced herein: with regard to compensation is as follows :- " 1. That the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal made in LAO.P.No.15 of 1997 dated 27.04.2012 be and hereby is modified as the market value of land is redetermined at Rs.67/-(Rupees Sixty Seven Only) per sq.feet.

¶2That the appellant/land acquisition officer do pay the claimants Rs.67/-(Rupees sixty seven only) per sq. feet being the market value for the land acquired and subsequent usual benefits, i.e. and additional amount under Section 23(1) of land acquisition Act at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of possession or date of award whichever is earlier and solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value together with interest on such compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till date of deposit.

¶3That the appellant/land acquisition officer be and hereby is directed to pay the compensation less the amount already passed to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶4That the special Government pleader for the appellant/land acquisition officer in these appeals be and hereby is entitled to claim separate fee for such appeal.

¶5That there be no costs in this appeal. "

¶10In the above order, this Court fixed the rate of acquired land value at Rs.67/- per sq.ft., and subsequent benefits, such as additional amount under section 23(1) Land Acquisition Act and at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of possession and the date of award whoever earlier and solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value together with interest on such compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit.

¶11Admittedly, in this case, the area of land acquired is 10759.32 sq.ft., at the rate of 67% per square feet. Land value comes to Rs.7,20,874.44. Sl. Details Amount Interest

¶1Land Value 7,20,874.44

¶230% Solatium 2,16,262.33 12% Additional value for 25.10.1993 to

05.10.1995 1,68,506.87

¶4Total amoutn 1 +2+3= 11,05,634.64

¶5Amount Already paid by LAO 9,021.00

¶6Balance Principal amount 4-5= 10,96,622.64

¶79% interest for 1 year 19.10.1995 to

18.10.1996 (366 days) -- 98,750.71

¶815% interrest from 19.10.1996 to

09.10.2004(2913 days) -- 13,11,902.25

¶9Total amount 7 + 8 =

14,10,652.96

¶10Total amount (i.e. Principal + interest = 25,07,275.60

¶1150% of amount deposited on 09.10.2004 14,04,048.00 The above said amount is not disputed by both the parties. Now, the balance amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.11,03,228/- upto this stage and there is no dispute between the parties.

¶12Now the issue to be decided is whether the first respondent/landowner is entitled only balance principle amount of Rs.11,03,228/- or together with interest at the rate of 15% from 10.10.2004 till the date of deposit before the Court. According to the revision petitioner, the balance amount of Rs.11,03,228/- had been deposited in the Court on

21.01.2021 and hence, according to them, no amount is payable to the first respondent.

¶13According to the first respondent/land owner, the balance amount of Rs.11,03,228/- warranted interest at the rate of 15% from 10.10.2004 till

21.01.2021. At this stage, it is noticed that this Court while finally disposing the matter directed to pay the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of deposit. Admittedly, In this case, the total principal amount with interest payable by the revision petitioner is Rs.25,07,275.60. Out of which, the revision petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.14,04,048/- on

09.10.2004.

¶14As per the order of this Court in A.S.No.527 of 2015, dated

22.03.2018, the total compensation amount carries 9% interest for one year and after that it carries 15% interest till the date of deposit. In this case, admittedly, on 09.10.2004, the petitioner deposited Rs.14,04,048/- out of the total compensation amount of Rs.25,07,275.60. After deducting the deposited amount of Rs.14,04,048/-, the balance amount is Rs.11,03,228/-, which warranting 15% interest from 10.10.2004 till the date of deposit. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has deposited Rs.11,03,228/-on 22.02.2021, and this amount not carries interest of 15%. The Execution Court calculated 15% interest from the date of 10.10.2004 for the balance amount of Rs.11,03,228/-, which is legal and sustainable one. The Execution Court calculation is as follows: " vdnt. nkny fz;l mry; U:/10.96.622/64 bjhif kw;Wk; xU tUl tl;o U:/98.966/43 kw;Wk; 2913 ehl;fSf;F tl;o U:/13.12.792/50 Mf bkhj;jk; U:/25.08.381/57 ( U:/10.96.622/64 + U:/98.966/43 + U:/13.12.792/50) MFk;/ ,e;epiyapy; bkhj;j bjhif U:.25.08.381/57 bjhifapy; 09/10/2004k; njjpapy; itg;gPL bra;j bjhif U:/14.04.048/00 nghf fle;j 10/10/2004k; njjp kDjhuUf;F bfhLf;fg;glntz;oa bjhif U:/11.04.333/57 (U:/25.08.381/57 -14.04.048/00 = 11.04.333/57) bjhif kDjhuUf;F fle;j 10/10/2004k; njjp md;W bfhLf;fg;glntz;oa[s;sJ/ ,e;epiyapy;. Vjph;kDjhuuhy; fle;j 22/01/2021 k;njjp bjhif U:/11.03.228/00 bjhif ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Wjpahf itg;gPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. 10/10/2004 Kjy; 21/01/2021 tiu bkhj;jk; 5947 ehl;fSf;F 15# tl;o fzf;fpLk; bghGJ. U:/11.04.333/57 x 15# x 5947 -365 = U:/26.98.960/98 bjhif tUfpwJ/ vdnt. fle;j 10/10/2004 md;W bfhLglntz;oa bjhif U;/11.04.333/57 bjhifa[ld; 5947 ehl;fs; tl;o bjhifapid Tl;Lk; bghGJ bkhj;jk; bjhif U:/38.03.294/55 (U:/11.04.333/57 + 26.98.960/98 =

38.03.294/55) MFk;/ ,e;epiyapy;. 22/01/2021 k;njjp itg;gPL bra;j bjhifapid bkhj;j bjhifiapypUe;J fHpf;Fk; bghGJ mjhtJ U:/38.03.294/55 ypUe;J itg;gPL bra;j bjhif U:/11.03.228/00 bjhifiapid fHpf;Fk; bghGJ U:/27.00.066/55 (U:/38.03.294/55 –

11.03.228/00 = U:/27.00.066/55) MFk;/ nkYk; 23/01/2021 njjp Kj;y cj;jut[ ehshd 08/11/2023 tiu 1019 ehl;fS;fF 15# tl;o fzf;fpLk; bghGJ U:/27.00.066.55 x 15 # x 1019 - 365 = U:/11.30.699/10 MFk;/ vdnt. kDjhuUf;F ,Wjpahf bfhLglntz;oa bjhif U:/27.00.066/55 bjhifa[ld; U:/11.30.699/10 bjhifapid Tl;Lk; bghGJ U:/38.30.765/65 ( U:.27.00.066/55 + U:/11.30.699/10 = U:/38.30.765/65) bjhif tUfpwJ/ vdnt. nkny fz;l fzf;fPl;od;go cj;jut[ ehshd 08/11/2023 njjp tiu kDjhuUf;F bfhLf;fg;glntz;oa bjhif U:/38.30.765/65 MFk;/"

¶15In view of the above, the Trial Court rightly calculated the amount due payable to the first respondent. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and there is no ground for interference and I find no merit in this revision the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

15.03.2024 Index: yes/no Internet:yes/no mrp To

¶1Additional Subordinate Judge, Additional Subordiate Court, Namakkal

V. SIVAGNANAM, J. mrp

15.03.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 01.03.2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 15.03.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM Civil Revision Petition No.4774 of 2023 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.28328 of 2023 The Project Director National Highways Authority of India Project Impementation Unit(NS) Door No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatti, Salem-636 004 ... Petitioner Vs 1. Ettikan 2. Special Tahsildhar(Land Acquisition) Namakkal Bypass, Namakkal. 3. Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem - 5 ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 08.11.2023 of the Hon'ble Sub- Court, Namakkal made in REP No.61 of 2021 in LAOP No.15 of 1997. For Petitioners : Mr Su. Srinivasan For respondents : Mr.N. Subramaniyam for R1