Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Sekar - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Writ Petition No.5147 of 2022
Decided on : 25-04-2025
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 23 - Compensation for acquired land - Petitioners challenged the proceedings of the 5th respondent regarding compensation calculation, asserting entitlement to additional amounts based on previous court judgments - The court found that the impugned order relied on invalid government directives and clarified that interest on solatium must be awarded as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India. (Paras 5, 9, 10)
(B) Government Orders - The court ruled that G.O.(Ms) No.401 dated 12.10.2018 misinterpreted the Supreme Court's judgment and thus was invalid. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners' lands were acquired in 1988, and after various appeals and orders, they sought the balance compensation amount due, which was not paid as per the decree.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the 5th respondent's order and directed payment of the balance compensation within six weeks.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the government order regarding compensation calculation and the entitlement of the petitioners to additional amounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that interest on solatium must be awarded according to the Supreme Court's interpretation, and invalid government directives cannot dictate compensation calculations.
Result: Writ petition allowed with directions for payment.
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 04.01.2022 and G.O.(Ms) No.401 dated 12.10.2018 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the balance compensation amount due and payable to the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.4/1988-89 dated 05.09.1988 granting a partly sum of Rs.26/- per cent. Hence, an objection was made and a reference was sought for under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court enhanced the compensation and not being satisfied, the petitioners filed AS.No.402 etc., of 2010 and they claimed a sum of Rs.15/- per Sq.feet. The appeals were allowed by this Court by a judgement and decree dated 27.08.2010. Thereafter, review application was filed in Review Application Nos.154 to 159 of 2017 and these applications were allowed by an order dated 20.09.2017.
3. The petitioners thereafter made a joint representation seeking for deposit of the enhanced compensation. Since the same was not considered, the petitioners filed WP.No.31737 of 2018, before this Court. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 07.01.2019, by directing the 5th respondent to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks. Since the same was not complied with, contempt petition was filed in Cont.P.No.1323 of 2019.
4. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 06.03.2020, the respondents relied upon G.O.(Ms) No.401 dated 12.10.2018 for computation/calculation of the compensation. Even thereafter, the compensation payable to the petitioners was not finalised. Ultimately, the contempt petition came up for hearing on 22.11.2021 and this Court passed the following order:
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that as directed by this Court on 25.10.2021, the 3rd respondent is appearing before this Court through video conference. That apart, he also submits that the Government has passed a G.O. sanctioning compensation in G.O.(2D) No.282 dated 20.11.2021 and the compensation amount will be deposited before the Reference Court within a period of two weeks from today.
2. Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the amount sanctioned as per the aforesaid G.O. is not the actual compensation payable to the petitioners and as per his calculation the petitioner is entitled to twelve lakhs more. In view of the dispute, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to approach the concerned Tahsildar, Land Acquisition in relation to quantum of compensations payable to the petitioners and clarify with him regarding the quantum of compensation.
3. The presence of the 3 rd respondent before this Court is dispensed with.
4. Post the matter for compliance on 20.12.2021. 22.11.20
5. Pursuant to the above order, petitioners approached the 5th respondent and made a representation requesting for payment of the balance compensation amount as per the decree. However, the 5th respondent passed the impugned order dated 04.01.2022, by relying upon G.O(Ms).No.401 dated 12.10.2018 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh .Vs. Union of India.
6. The contempt petition thereafter came up for hearing on 07.01.2022 and it was closed with an observation that if the petitioners have any grievance over the order passed by the 5th respondent, it is left open to them to challenge the same. Accordingly, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.
7. Heard Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleaders for respondents.
8. The case in hand is squarely covered
Interest on solatium in land acquisition cases must be awarded as per Supreme Court rulings, invalidating conflicting government directives.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Gurpreet Singh case overrules previous compensation principles, necessitating new administrative directives under the Land Acquisition Act.
The solatium and interest amount were held to be payable under the Act of 1953, and the solatium formed a component of the compensation itself, warranting interest. The interest on solatium was held ....
Interest on solatium is permissible, but calculating interest on that interest is against legal principles.
The right to compensation arises on land vesting with the State, while its quantification may occur later, with interest payable until deposited.
Acquisition of land – Interest on Solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions.
The petitioner is entitled to solatium and interest for land acquisition following the Supreme Court's ruling declaring Section 3-J of the National Highways Act unconstitutional.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
