Interference by High Court with judgment rendered by subordinate-Court, which is in accordance with law, would result in injustice.

1. The matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, is the revision petitioner. Both the revisions have been filed against the orders of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in I.A.Nos.219 and 231 of 1992 in L.A.O.No.46 of 1988. Those two applications were filed by the respondents/claimants under Sec.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the respondents have prayed for the grant of leave to amend the judgment and decree in respect of interest at the rate of 15% instead of at 9% based under Sec.28 of the Act, which provides for interest on solatium, and to grant leave to amend the judgment and decree in respect of the increased amount under Sec.23(l-A) of the Act and interest thereon under Sec.28 of the Act. The trial court allowed both the applications against which the present revisions have been filed by the State.

2. The lands in question were acquired by the state at the rate of Rs.1,303 per acre and on a reference to the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, the same was raised to Rs.20,000 per acre, with solatium of 30% and interest at 12% per annum from 15.8.1979 till 20.1.1988 and thereafter at 9% per annum till the date of depositing the amount. Against the award of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, the state has preferred A.S.No.657 of 1989 on the file of this Court and as per the interim order passed, the State was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount into this Court and on such deposit, the respondents/claimants were permitted to withdraw 50% of the same. Thereafter, the respondents have preferred I.A.No.219 of 1992 in the trial court stating that they would be entitled to interest at 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount as the same has not been deposited into court within one year from the date of order along with interest at 9%. This prayer has been ordered by the impugned order against which C.R.P.No.408 of 1994 has been preferred. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.231 of 1992 in the trial court stating that they are entitled to get additional increase amount at 12% from the date of possession to the date of passing of the award. The learned Subordinate Judge has awarded the same against which C.R.P.No.794 of 1994 has been preferred by the State.

3. The points that arise for consideration in both the revisions are:

(a) Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled to interest on solatium under Sec.28 of the Act.

(b) whether the respondents/claimants are entitled to increased amount under Sec.23(l-A) of the Act.

(c) Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled to interest under Sec.28 of the Act on the increased amount awarded under Sec.23(l-A) of the Act.

4. Points:The learned Advocate General submitted that the relief sought for by the respondents are not to be granted. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents are entitled to be granted the relief based on the earlier judgments between interparties.

5. The earlier inter-party proceedings are,

(i) Judgment of this Court rendered by E.J.Bellie,J., in C.R.P.No.1828 of 1991 dated 22.11.1991 reported in G.Swaminatha Mudaliar v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Tirunelveli G.Swaminatha Mudaliar v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Tirunelveli G.Swaminatha Mudaliar v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Tirunelveli, (1992)2 MLJ. 203.

(ii) Judgment of K.A.Thanikkachalam, J., as he then was, in C.R.P.No.8 of 1992, dated 16.7.1992.

(iii) Judgment of M.Srinivasan, J., as he then was, and S.M.Abdul Wahab,J., in Appeal Nos.657 to 659 of 1989, etc., dated 15.2.1996.

6. I shall now refer to the judgment of E.J.Bellie, J., in C.R.P.No.1828 of 1991 reported in G.Swaminatha Mudaliar v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Tirunelveli G.Swaminatha Mudaliar v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Tirunelveli G.Swaminatha Mudaliar v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Tirunelveli, (1992)2 MLJ. 203. The sa