2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Mahudeeswari – Appellant
Versus
The Special Thasildhar [Land Acquisition] – Respondent
CRP NPD No.3420 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Sudhakar
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Gopal, Mr.C.Kalaichelvan, Mr.J.Pradeep
The court clarified that interest on solatium is integral to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, based on Supreme Court precedents.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge the Execution Court's dismissal of their Execution Petition regarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant statute includes sections 23(2) and 41(1) of the Act. The court found that interest on solatium was not granted as sought. The significant issues revolved around the interpretation of the appellate court's previous orders and the Supreme Court’s rulings in major land acquisition cases. The judgment clarified that the Execution Court erred in dismissing the request for interest based on prior appellate decisions. The revision is allowed, setting aside the Execution Court order and directing a reconsideration of interest within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments on interest entitlement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's interpretation of previous orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. revision allowed; order set aside. (Para 8) |
O R D E R
Challenging the Order of the Execution Court dismissing the Execution Petition, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision is as follows :
The notification for acquiring the property of the petitioner has been issued under section 41[1] of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.08.1982 followed by notice under section 9[1] of the Land Acquisition Act on 17.12.1986 and award has been passed on 20.08.1987 for acquiring 4 acre and 55 cents and compensation of Rs.4629/63 per acre has been fixed by the Special Tahsildar. Reference was made to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Tribunal by an Order dated 27.08.1993, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per cent in L.O.P.No.11 of 1991. Challenging the said Order, an appeal has been filed by the State in A.S.No.917 of 1994 and Cross objection No.86 of 2001 has also been filed by the petitioner. While dismissing the appeal, this Court has allowed the cross objections and enhanced the compensation from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per cent and also held that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium only for the market value of the land acquired in addition to this additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4[1] satisfaction till the date of passing of the award or delivery or possession, which ever is earlier. It is also made clear that claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per anuum till the date of deposit. Further the issue regarding grant of interest, this Court had held that solatium is pending before the larger bench of the Supreme Court, hence, depending on the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court, the claimants are permitted to file appropriate petition before the concerned Subordinate Court. Therefore, they had filed an execution petition taking note of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Constitution Bench judgment in Sunder Vs. Union of India in Case in Appeal [Civil] 6271 of 1998, dated 19.09.2001. However, the Execution Court has dismissed the Execution petition on the ground that the appellate Court has not granted any interest on solatium and additional amount.
Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that on the date of udgment in Sundar case cited supra, entire amount has already been deposited. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any interest.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Execution Court has misrepresented the Order of the appellate Court. Infact, the appellate Court has permitted the petitioners to approach the Subordinate Court for claiming interest on the solatium and additional amount subject to the outcome of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. Now the Constitution Bench in Sundar case cited supra has answered the reference and held that the solatium provided under section 23[2] of the Land Acquisition Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a land owner and then interest is also payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Hence, submitted that the Order of the Execution Court has to be set aside.
5. Heard both sides and perused entire materials available on record.
6. The Execution Petition has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the appellate Court has not provided any interest. It is relevant to note that the appellate Court while enhancing the compensation from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per cent has passed the following Order :
“It is further made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and addit