R. Saragapani(Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Spl. Tahsildar, Tamilnadu

3. Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Railway Line, Unit II, Dindigul (for short, `the Land Acquisition Officer') passed award dated 19.5.1987 and declared that the landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per acre. He also awarded Rs.160/- per yielding coconut tree and Rs.30/- per young coconut tree (trees with flowers and flowering stage). 3

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the Court for determination of the compensation payable to the landowners. The same were registered as LAOP Nos. 29 and 30 of 1988. In what was described as the counter statements filed by them, the landowners claimed that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. They also claimed that the coconut trees were capable of giving crop for 50 years at the rate of Rs.500/- per annum.

5. During the pendency of reference, the Reference Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the acquired land to ascertain the number of trees and their age. The Court Commissioner took the assistance of Village Administrative Officer and Shri P. Nagarajan, Agricultural Development Officer Panchayath Union, Vedasandur and inspected the acquired land on 7.11.1992 after giving notice to both the parties. The landowners and their Advocate Shri K. Subramanian were present at the time of inspection but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. After inspecting the site, Shri P. Nagarajan submitted report dated 7.11.1992 with the finding that the trees were 17 years old and would give better yield for a further period of 70 years. He also opined that each tree will give a total income of Rs.29,890/-. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner submitted 4 report dated 20.11.1992 to the Reference Court endorsing the report of Shri P. Nagarajan.

9. The respondent challenged the award of the Reference Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act, which came to be registered as Appeal Suit Nos.976 and 977 of 1993. On being noticed by the High Court, the landowners filed Cross Objection Nos. 23/1995 and 111/2001 and claimed that they were entitled to additional compensation.

18. We also agree with Shri Nageswara Rao that the appellants should be given the benefit of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). It appears that attention of the High Court was not drawn to that judgment else it would have, in all probability, extended the benefit of that judgment to the appellants.

19. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside and the award passed by the Reference Court is restored with modification that the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount with effect from 11.3.1985, i.e. the date on which possession of land was taken by the Railway Department. They shall also be entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). The respondent is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation and interest to the legal representatives of the landowners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment.