IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 07.01.2008 CORAM: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN A.S.No.879 of 1996 & A.S.No.399 of 1997 A.S.No.879 of 1996: The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode ... Appellant/Referring Officer -vs- C.Mohanasundaram ... Respondent/Claimant A.S.No.399 of 1997: C.Mohanasundaram ... Appellant/Claimant -vs- The Land Acquisition Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Periyar District ... Respondent/Referring Officer Both these appeals are filed against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 1987 dated 08.11.1995 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. For Appellant/ Referring Officer : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS) For Respondent/ Claimant : M/s.V.P.Sengottuvel COMMON JUDGMENT A.S.No.879 of 1996 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.11.1995 made in LAOP.No.31 of 1989 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode by the Referring Officer, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Neighbourhood scheme, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Erode and A.S.No.399 of 1997 has been preferred by the claimant. At request, both the appeals have been taken up together for disposal. 2.It is not in dispute that 0.39.0hectares of land in S.No.504/2 at Periyakulam village, Erode Taluk was acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was published on 15.07.1981. After enquiry, as per award No.2/06 dated 11.08.1986, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.33,984/- per acre, in other words Rs.83,940/-per hectare. The respondent/claimant received the compensation amount under protest and at the request of the respondent, it was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by both sides, fixed the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.6,000/-per are. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered to pay Rs.2,34,000/- as market value of the land to be paid with 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession, 30% solatium and also interest as per Section 23(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by which, the referring officer has preferred this appeal. The respondent/claimant herein has also preferred a Cross Appeal in A.S.No.399 of 1997 for enhancement of compensation at Rs.12/-per sq.ft.to be paid with other statutory benefits. 3.It is not in dispute that similar appeal was preferred by the referring officer against five other claimants in appeal No.73 of 1992, wherein a Cross objection in Cross objection No.103 of 1992 was also filed by the aforesaid claimants. It is seen that the aforesaid appeal relates to LAOP.No.42 of 1987, arising out of the award passed by the referring officer in award No.2/96. The land acquisition Tribunal, Erode, by its order dated 09.05.1981, has passed the impugned order therein. The Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment dated 07.12.2000 has disposed the appeal in A.S.No.73 of 1992 and the Cross Appeal No.103 of 1992, whereby fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,534/-per are. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant while advancing his arguments, has produced the xerox copy of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. 4.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has not disputed that Rs.6,534/-per annum was the market value fixed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.On the facts and circumstances, since compensation for the land in S.No.504/2 is also arising out of the same award No.2/96, passed by the same Land Acquisition Officer, it has to be construed as one covered by the said judgment. Considering the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,534/- per are and accordingly for the acquired 39ares compensation has to be fixed. The respondent/claimant is also entitled to get interest for the additional amount on the market value and solatium, as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. In support of the claim of the respondent, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in Sunder vs. Union of India, reported in (2002(2)L.W.39), the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decision has held as follows: "It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay the compensation awarded by him to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof." As per the proviso to Section 34 of the Act, it is clear that if such compensation has not been paid within one year from the date of taking over possession of the land, the interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum, from the date of expiry of the said period of one year, 'On the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.' 7.In the light of the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the respondent is entitled to get compensation for the acquired land at Rs.6,534/-per are, apart from 12%, additional amount from 12.01.1983, date of 4 (1) notification till the date of award i.e. 11.08.1986, 30% solatium and for the above said compensation amount, interest at 9% for one year from the date of award, and for the subsequent period 15%, after deducting the amount already received by the claimant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.On the aforesaid terms, the appeal preferred by the referring officer, Special Officer(LA) is dismissed and the cross appeal in A.S.No.399 of 1997 is partly allowed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Smi To, 1.The 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. 2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. Two ccs to Mr.v.Sengottuvel, advocate SR.No.1046 one cc to Government Pleader SR.no.1249 A.S.No.879 of 1996 & A.S.No.399 of 1996 LA[CO] SKY/28/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/