Civil Appeal No 1425 of 1968
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 5 8 74 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No 448 of 1960
A V Rangam and Miss A Subhashini for the Appellant
K Jayaram and R Chandresekhar for Respondent No 1 Ex parte for Respondents 2 8
537 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA J
This appeal on certificate is by the State of Madras now Tamil Nadu against the judgment of Madras High Court affirming on appeal the award of learned Subordinate judge Salem in respect of the amount of compensation payable to the respondents for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act Act 1 of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act
The High Court however directed that the interest on the amount awarded shall run from November 19 1951 the date of the award by the Land Acquisition officer and not from December 1 1949 as ordered by the Subordinate Judge
On July 12 1949 notification under section 4 of the Act was issued forthe acquisition of 19 acres 45 cents of dry land situated in Alegapuram Mitta for the Salem Fair Lands Co operative Society Ltd
On December 19 1950
Alegapuram Mitta was notified under the Madras Estates Abolition Act Act 26 of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act
A writ petition was filed in the High Court to challenge that notification
Further proceedings in pursuance of the notification were stayed by the High Court by order dated January 1 1951
The Society for which acquisition was being made deposited in the meantime the probable cost of the land on September 13 1950
On November 19 1951 the Land Acquisition officer announced his award
The respondents it may be stated were the Melevaramdars land holders of the land in question
Kudiwaramdars cultivators were also besides the respondents parties to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition officer
The Land Acquisition officer by his award dated November 19 1951 awarded compensation to the cultivators at the rate of Rs 1500 per acre for part of the land near the road and at the rate of Rs 1300 per acre for the rest of the land
Rs 520 11 As 1 P the capitalised value of the net rental income was held to be the amount payable to the respondents
The Kudiwaramdars were content with the compensation awarded to them but the respondents who were as already mentioned above Melavaramdars asked for a reference to court under section 18 of the Act for claiming enhanced compensation
According to the respondents they were entitled to one third of the value of the totality of the interest in the land
According further to the respondents compensation for the total land should be awarded at the rate of Rs 3000 per acre Learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondents were entitled to 50 percent of the compensation awarded in respect of the Melawaram interest in the land
The Subordinate Judge in this context relied r upon an earlier decision of the Madras High Court wherein it had been held that the rights of Melavaramdars were not confined only to rent from land and that they had other recognised rights and were entitled to compensation for those rights
The respondents were thus held entitled to compensation for their Melavaramdar interest at the rate of Rs 750 per acre in respect of land near the road and Rs 650 per acre in respect of the remaining land
Interest was awarded to the respondents on the compensation amount from December 1 1949 2 608SCI76 538 because in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge possession of the land had been taken from that date
On appeal the High Court affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge regarding the rate of compensation
The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the land had vested in the Government under the Abolition Act the respondents were not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act was rejected
It was observed that in the land acquisition proceedings the Government was estopped from denying the absence of any interest in the claimants whom the Government had made parties to the proceedings
Regarding the date from which interest on the amount or compensation should accrue the High Court found that there was no material on the record to show that possession of the land had been taken prior to the date of the award by the Land Acquisition officer
Interest was accordingly directed to run from the date of the award
In appeal before us Mr Rangam on behalf of the appellant state has urged that as the land in question has vested under the Abolition Act in the State the respondents are not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
We find it difficult to accede to this submission for we are of the opinion that in case the State wanted to take over the land under the Abolition Act it should not have proceeded to acquire the interest of the respondents in the land in dispute under the Land Acquisition Act
There were two alternative courses open to the State either to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act or to take over the land under the Abolition Act
Although the estate was notified under the Abolition Act the proceedings under that Act were stayed and the matter proceeded under the Land Acquisition Act
As the proceedings which were continued were under the Land Acquisition Act the compensation payable had also to be paid in accordance with the provisions of that Act
The reference which was made by the Land Acquisition officer to the Subordinate Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was with respect to the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents because the respondents had felt dissatisfied with the amount awarded to them as compensation by the said officer
The underlying assumption of those proceedings was that the respondents had an interest in the land
If it was the case of the appellant that the respondents had been divested of their interest in the land and the same had vested in the appellant State the appellant should have taken appropriate steps to make such a claim in accordance with law
No such claim seems to have been made
The High Court expressly left open the question of the claim of the State Government to the amount of compensation deposited on the score that Melwaramdar respondents were not entitled to it by reason of having lost all their interest in the land at the relevant point of time
We agree with the High Court that it was not open to the appellant State in the particular reference made at the instance of the respondents to the Subordinate Judge to set up a claim adverse to the interest of the respondents
There is also we find nothing in the award of the learned Subordinate Judge to show that any question was raised before him that the amount of compensation was not payable to the 539 respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
This question appears to have been agitated for the first time only in the appeal before the High Court
The High Court rejected the contention in this behalf
We find no cogent ground to take a different view
As regards the quantum of compensation the High Court has referred to the previous decisions which show that the formula gene rally adopted is to pay one third of the total compensation to Melavaramdars and two thirds of the compensation to Kudiwaramdars
In accordance with that formula the respondents would be entitled to one half of the compensation payable to Kudiwaramdars
Both the Subordinate Judge and the High Court awarded compensation in accordance with this formula
No cogent ground has been shown to us as to why we should interfere with the concurrent finding in this respect
We also find no reason to disagree with the High Court regarding the date from which interest should run on the amount of compensation
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The State of Madras acquired land belonging to the respondent landlords
The Land Acquisition officer gave his award determining the compensation payable
On a reference made to the Subordinate judge certain compensation was determined
Interest was awarded to the respondents on the compensation amount from 1st December 1949 because in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge possession of the land had been taken on that date
On an appeal the High Court affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge regarding the rate of compensation
The High Court also rejected the contention of the appellant that the land had vested in the Government under the Madras States Abolition Act 1948 and therefore the respondents were not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
The High Court found that there was no material on record to show that the possession of the land had been taken prior to the date of the award by the Land Acquisition officer
Interest was accordingly directed to run from the date of the award ie November 1951
In an appeal by certificate the appellant contended 1 The land in question vested under the Abolition Act in the State and the respondents were therefore not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act
2 The quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court was excessive
3 Interest should have been allowed from 1st December 1949
 HELD  1  There were 
two alternative courses open to the State either to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act or to take over the land under the Abolition Act
Although the estate was notified under the Abolition Act the proceedings under that Act were stayed and the matter proceed l under the Land Acquisition Act
It was not open to the appellant in the particular reference made at the instance of the respondents to the Subordinate Judge to set up a claim adverse to the interest of the respondents
The High Court rightly rejected the contention of the appellant in this behalf
538D E G H 2  Both the High Court as well as the Subordinate Judge awarded the compensation in accordance with the previous decisions which laid down a formula
No cogent grounds have been shown to us to interfere with the concurrent findings in this respect
539B C 3 There is no reason to disagree with the High Court judgment regarding the date on which the interest should run on the amount of compensation
539 G