Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 483
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
A. SELVAM
The Executive Engineer, Administrative Officer
Versus
S. Jeya rep.by her power agent S. Ramanathan & Another
C.R.P.(NPD).(md).No.130 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 31-01-2011
For the Petitioner:P. Thilak Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 - K.S. Sreenivasan, Caveator.
The main legal point established is that interest under the Land Acquisition Act should be awarded from the date of taking possession, as per the provisions of Section 16 and Section 28.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Interest Clause - Section 16, Section 28
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the award of compensation and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Tribunal awarded 9% interest from the date of passing of the award, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interest clause in the award was erroneous as per the provisions of Section 16 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. It held that the interest should be awarded from the date of taking possession, not from the date of passing the award.
Issues: The main issue was the correct application of the provisions of Section 16 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in determining the date from which interest should be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 16 and Section 28, which clearly stated that possession can be taken only after passing of an award and interest can be awarded from the date of taking possession.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, and the Land Acquisition Tribunal was directed to find out the correct date of taking possession and fix interest from that date.
1. The impugned order dated 23.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.143 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 by the third Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is being challenged in the present civil revision petition.
2. The second respondent herein as Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the land in question belonged to the first respondent herein and awarded a compensation and the first respondent has challenged the quantum of compensation and therefore, a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai and the same has been taken on file in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has fixed Rs.870/- as compensation per cent. Further, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has directed to pay 9% interest from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Against the interest clause passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the present petition has been filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in I.A.No.143 of 2010. The Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has dismissed the same stating that the relief sought for in the petition is not legally maintainable under the said section. Against the dismissal order passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, the present civil revision petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/2nd respondent in L.A.O.P.No.1/2008.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the first respondent is entitled get 9% interest for the award amount only from the date of taking possession. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has erroneously awarded 9% interest from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer/2nd respondent herein. Under the said circumstances, the petition in I.A.No.143 of 2010 has been filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore, the order passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant has contended that as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the concerned District Collector is entitled to take possession after passing of the award in question. Under the said circumstances, the District Collector has taken possession of the property in dispute immediately after passing of the award and not on 12.05.2008 as stated on the side of the revision petitioner and further, the present petition is not legally maintainable under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further the error alleged to have been committed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is not an accidental slip and the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, after considering all the contentions raised on either side, has rightly dismissed the petition filed in I.A.No.143 of 2010 and therefore, the order passed in I.A.No.143 of 2010 is liable to be interfered with.
5. For considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, the court has to look into the provisions of Section 16 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 16 of the said Act reads as follows:
“Power to take possession:-When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances.”
Section 28 of the said Act reads as follows:
“Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation:-If the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Col
