Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 2195
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI, JJ.
SPL. Tahsildar, Land Acq. – Appellant
Versus
Nallamadan and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4307-4322 of 2000
Decided On : 31-07-2000
Delay in original notification and discrepancy in market value justified setting aside the direction to deposit entire amount. Interest accrual to claimants considered in deciding to hear the appeal out-of-turn.
Headnote:
Substitution - Appeal for Hearing - Court sets aside direction to deposit entire amount covered by award and orders appeal to be heard out-of-turn due to delay in original notification
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the direction to deposit a large amount due to delay in original notification from 1962, but market value fixed as of 1992. The appellant sought stay on this basis.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the direction to deposit the entire amount covered by the award, considering the delay in the original notification and the interest that would accrue to the claimants. The court ordered the appeal to be heard out-of-turn in the interest of justice.
Issues: Challenge to direction to deposit entire amount, delay in original notification, interest accrual to claimants
Ratio Decidendi: Delay in original notification and discrepancy in market value justified setting aside the direction to deposit entire amount. Interest accrual to claimants considered in deciding to hear the appeal out-of-turn.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the direction to deposit the entire amount set aside and the appeal ordered to be heard out-of-turn.
ORDER :
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The direction to deposit the amount with permission to the claimants to withdraw is now challenged by the appellant, evidently because the amount had swelled up to a very huge one. It is pointed out that the original notification was of the year 1962, but the market value was fixed as on 1992. This is the premise on which the stay was seriously pressed. Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel submits that the said premise is not correct. This dispute is a matter for the High Court to resolve at the final stage. If finally the High Court upholds the award passed by the Reference Court the beneficiary would be the claimants. Even if the amount is not deposited at present, they would get interest added to the amount in accordance with the rate prescribed under the Act and not in accordance with the rate of interest prevailing now in Bank transactions. Considering that aspect we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to direct the entire amount covered by the award to be deposited and to remain idle. However, we feel that in the interest of justice this appeal should be boarded for hearing out-of-turn because the original notification on which the claim is passed had been issued in the year 1962. While setting aside the direction to deposit the entire amount we direct the Registrar of the High Court to board Appeal Nos. 191-206/1998 (if they are ripe for hearing in the sense that all records have been made ready) in the hearing list in the month of November, 2000.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Ordered accordingly.
