The Supreme Court's ruling in Gurpreet Singh case overrules previous compensation principles, necessitating new administrative directives under the Land Acquisition Act.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.683, dated 21.07.1997, G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 12.10.2018 and Letter No.558(LAI(1) 05-02 dated 11.03.2005 and for a consequential direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to give necessary directions to the District Collectors/District Revenue Officers/Land Acquisition Officers to apply the principles declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in 2006 8 SCC 457 in respect of the compensation payable to the land owners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .

2.The issue that is involved in the present writ petition was already dealt with by Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee (as he then was) in W.P.No.446 of 2017 in Hemavathy and others vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others, dated 19.12.2017. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

3. In this petition, the learned counsel alleged that the ratio in PremNath Kapoor case decided by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court and referred to and relied on by the first respondent in the correspondence now impugned in these proceedings has since been overruled by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurupreet Singh vs. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457]. Hence, this aforesaid correspondence of the first respondent is no more valid and is contrary to the principles governing the and d the Land Acquisition Authorities were wrong in following the direction given in the impugned correspondence.

4. Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, the learned Government Advocate entered appearance for filed by them. the respondents and no counter affidavit has filed by them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even as on 06.11.2009, when the First Appeal was disposed of by this Court the principles laid down in the authority in Gurupreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457] has come to have force and hence, the calculation of interest by the authorities on the basis of the law that was since overruled is bad.

6.A careful reading of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh case does indicate that it actually overturns the entire ratio in Premnath case, though there is Limited overruling. In the context of case at hand, the principles which the Supreme Court has declared in Gurpreetingh case are:

Where a part payment of compensation was received, the decree-holder/the erstwhile owner of the land can first adjust it against the interest, then the cost and then the principal amount payable out of it.

Where this appropriation has been done once, later when the balance amount is paid, the appropriation earlier made cannot be reopened and the entire transaction cannot be reworked by recalculating the interest payable on the whole and Fresh appropriation towards interest, cost and principal based thereon cannot be done.

In cases when part of the amount awarded by the Reference Court or by the appellate Court is deposited pursuant to an interim order of the appellate Court or of the further appellate court and the awardee withdraws the same, and subject to the fact that such appeal is decided in his favour,

the decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the amount already received by him pursuant to the interim order first towards interest, then towards costs and the balance towards principal as on date of the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on the balance amount of enhanced compensation.

However, on the part amount already appropriated towards principal, the interest would cease from the date on which the amount is received by the awardee.

If however, the Court, passes the interim order enabling withdrawal of part amount has indicated the mode of appropriation then that would prevail.

7. It is therefore evident that whatever direction was given under the letter dated 11.03.2005 of the first respondent directing the sixth respondent to calculate the interest in terms of the principles initiated in the case of