9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the memo of valuation which rests upon the rental basis system, learned counsel would say that he would be entitled to a sum of ₹ 25, 884-21. Pressing however the alternative argument that even if the property were to be valued differently, namely, as land and the building thereon, the value of ₹ 1100/- per ground adopted by the Court below is inadequate. 3. As regards the first contention, we do not agree that this property should be evaluated on the rental basis because on or before the date of acquisition, the property was not let out and was occupied by the owner and it would be very difficult to find in the absence of evidence the market rent for the premises in question, when at the required time the property was not actually let out. As adoption of a monthly rental value on the basis of the prevailing rents after the date of notification would not be safe or proper, we refrain from accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the property should be evaluated on the rental basis system. 4. There is however considerable force in the argument of Mr. V. V. Raghavan, learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in the instant case was in 1960. It should however be noticed that the other plots accidentally but fortunately came within the City limits; but the plots now acquired are branded as properties outside the City limits. Taking this into consideration and the other circumstances as location and environment, we grant a compensation of ₹ 2000/- per ground for the acquired land. The appellant would be entitled to the 15 per cent solatium on the excess compensation awarded by this Judgment. 6. The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. (And Appeal No. 203 of 1964 along with Appeal No. 414 of 1964 coming on for hearing on Thursday the 18th day of December, 1969, Appeal No. 203/64 having been posted for being spoken to on this day on the letter of the Advocate dated 9-12-1969, the Court delivered the following judgment.) Tayi Ramaprasada Rao, J. 7-8. A. S. No. 414 of 1964 is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, who,. in an interlocutory application before him, in a Land Acquisition case which was originally referred to Court under Section 18 of the Act, allowed interest on the excess compensation granted, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar enactment, brought into the anvil by legislative wisdom, projects the police power or according to American Jurisprudence, the power of eminent domain of the State. Acquisition or requisition is made for a public purpose or in an emergency. In either case, expropriation of property becomes necessary by force of public good. In such cases the owner is retrieved of his property by compulsion and is kept out of it in consideration of a substituted payment, which represents the real and fair market value of the property taken and the fair rent or income derived therefrom. In acquisition, it is a permanent divestiture of rights in property; whereas in requisition it would be a temporary phase. In both events the owner is deprived, wither for ever or for a period from enjoying his property. Such deprivation obviously is compensable, unless otherwise unequivocally stated by the Legislature whose plenary authority to fix the formula of compensation has certain broad advances and narrow outlets. We are not concerned in this appeal with such issues. As in acquisition or requisition, the rights over the properties in any proprietorship removed in the in the name of public purpose, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A valid reference has to be enquired into buy the Court as if it is a normal legal proceeding and thereafter the court shall pass its award which shall substitute the one already given by the Collector. Under Section 26 every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge. What is an award and what are its contents? The decree of Court on a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act is primarily the award though fictionally it is called a decree and the statement of the grounds of such an award a judgment. Such a statutory fiction, treating the award as a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2). C.P.C., has to be fully implemented and given effect to as if such a putative fact exists and there is no scope to boggle with one's imagination. While interpreting such a deemed decree. This is so provided in Section 26(2) of the Act. The award shall specify the amount awarded as prescribed in Section 23, together with the grounds for awarding such amounts. This is treated as a judgment. This is contemplated in Section 26(1) and (2) of the Act. Section 27 thereto makes it incumbent upon the Court to state the costs payable by one party to the other, unless it, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant was entitled to interest , which was omitted to be provided by the High Court. Though the above two precedents were noticed by the learned Judges in Subramania Aiyar v. Collector of Tanjore, 51 MLJ 309 IR 1926 Mad 1019, they were not sure whether the Court is bound to award interest under Section 28 and felt that the matter was not free from doubt. After the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh [1961]3SCR676 , National Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR1963SC1171 and Raghubans Narain Singh v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 465, the position is crystal clear and in our view, interest which ought to be provided in the award or the deemed decree forms part of it and hence it is woven into the fabric of compensation awardable under the Act and thus integrated with it. The two age-old rules approved by the Supreme Court and propounded originally by either the House of Lords or the Privy Council can be reproduced thus: (a) In a case where the State or the promoter, in an acquisition or requisition enters into possession without paying the just compensation, then interest is awarded on the gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest at a rate less than 6 per cent. The Supreme Court held that the award of interest under Section 28 of the Act raised a question of interpretation of that section and was therefore a question of law, which can be raised even for the first time in the Court of last resort. Reliance was placed upon following the statement of law by Lord Watson in Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh, (1892) AC 473: When a question of law is raised for the first time in a Court of last resort upon the construction of a document or upon facts either admitted or proved beyond controversy, it is not only competent but expedient in the interest of justice to entertain the plea. But it should be noted, however, that the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were concerned with the main question provide a rate per cent of interest other than that provided in the Land Acquisition Act. Negativing it, their Lordships said that where the Court exercises its discretion under Section 28 and grants interest the interest has to be at the rate prescribed. Even such a discretion in Section 28 has now been held to be only in form, but in substance it is a mandate. But it was not necessary fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur AIR1969AP55 , the learned Judges relied on the dicta of Bhagwati, J., in Anandilal v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR1965Guj212 and differed from the ratio of its Court in Dodla Malliah v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR1964AP216. In AIR1964AP216 a Division Bench consisting of Satyanarayana Raju and Venkatesam, JJ., observed; The appellants also claim 15 per cent statutory solatium besides the compensation amount. It was laid down in Brahmanandam v. Secretary of State, AIR 1930 Mad 45 , that where a person being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, wants to appeal, insisting in case of his success that not only the excess market value but also 15 per cent, of the same should be decreed in his favour, he must pay court-fees not only on the excess market value, but also on 15 per cent thereon. It is also needless to point out that since the appellants are claiming interest on that amount, they are bound to pay court-fee on that amount as well. As a matter of fact, in AIR1930Mad45 it was held that solatium granted by an independent provision of the Land Acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces . Again in both AIR1965Guj212 and AIR1969AP55 the question whether solatium granted in acquisition proceedings forms part of compensation or not was left open. Our High Court has taken the view nearly 30 to 40 years ago, that solatium and interest granted in acquisition proceedings are part of compensation. Interest being yet another spark from the fire of compensation, we are bound to hold that interest is part of compensation awarded by the Court in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. 14. The further questions are whether such interest should be granted whether claimed by the interested person or not; and whether even if claimed this Court is bound to grant it notwithstanding the non-payment of Court-fee thereon in accordance with law. According to the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 465 the grant of interest under Section 28 of the Act raises a question of law and it can be considered by the High Court even when the referred Court has not granted the same. In that case the Supreme Court reviewed the question and granted interest although the High Court did not provide for it. In all the cases including the one before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Full Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main claim for compensation. Ananthakrishna Aiyar, J., in AIR1930Mad45 held: An appellant whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act but who, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court on a reference made to it under S. 18 of the Act, appeals to the High Court, is bound to include in the valuation of his appeal the amount of 15 per cent of the excess market value and pay court-fee thereon. In land acquisition cases, solatium is a creature of statute; even so in those cases interest is the panacea granted by law and tempered by equity. Both the subjects are to be equally treated and thus understood, both claims ought to be included in the valuation of the appeal and court-fee has to be paid on each of the counts. 16. In A. S. No. 414 of 1964 the further question is whether the order of the Court below is wrong. In our view it is not. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly held that the award of interest was accidentally omitted in the decree and that such a decree has to be corrected. The use of the word 'etc' is not without significance. There has been an omission which has been relieved by the lower court exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
