CHAIRMAN, NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. versus C. GOVINDA PADAYACHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 03-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHAIRMAN, NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPN. LTD. 
v. 
C. GOVINDA PADA Y ACHI AND ANR. 
APRIL 3, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 28 and 33-Acquisition of Land-
Compensation-On litigation quantification of compensation by Supreme 
Court-Quantified amount was lump sum inclusive of solatium and interest- C 
Landlord's claim, of interest on the excess amount awarded by Supreme court, 
from the date the possession of land was taken-Held: The claim of the 
landowner not permissible-The claim of interest was included in the lump 
sum amount determined by Supreme Court-Interest could be claimed on the 
quantified amount only after the date of judgment of Supreme Court till the 
date of payment. 
D 
Certain lands were acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, respondent No. I filed reference 
petition, whereby quantum of compensation was increased. In appeal 
thereagainst, High Court had directed the appellant to deposit the enhanced 
compensation awarded by the Reference Court with stipulation that 50% of E 
such amount could be withdrawn by the landowner without security and the 
remaining balance, upon furnishing the security. Respondent No. 1 withdrew 
50% of the deposit without security. 
In the meantime in similar matters High Court reduced the rate of F 
compensation. In appeal thereagainst by respondent No. 1, this court, by its 
order dated 7.12.1999 modifying the order of High Court, determined the 
rates of compensation which were inclusive of solatium and interest and were 
lump sum payments. It also directed to refund the balance 50% of the amount 
lying with the Bank, to the appellant. 
Appellant filed an application before Court of Sub-Judge in terms of 
order of this Court claiming payment of Rs. 83,985.26. Respondent No. 1 also 
filed an application claiming the balance of the lump sum amount together 
with the entire amount of inter~st earned on the deposit. Court directed the 
parties to file revised memo of calculation on the basis of orders passed by 
G 
701 
H 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A this Court. Respondent No. I filed Revision Petition thereagainst. High Court 
directed refund of Rs. 5,224/- only to the appellant against its claim and 
directed payment of lump sum amount together with the entire amount of 
interest on the deposit. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It cannot be said that in view of Sections 28 and 33 of Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 in addition to compensation as quantified by this Court 
earlier, respondent No. 1 was also entitled to interest on the excess amount 
as awarded by this Court from the date on which the possession of the lands 
C was taken till the payment of such excess amount into court. By order dated 
7th December, 1999, this Court while fixing a lump sum amount as 
compensation, took into consideration not only the value of the land acquired 
but solatium and interest as well. The interest that could have been claimed 
under Sections 28 and 33 of the Act were, in fact, included in the lump sum 
amount till 7th December, 1999, and interest can be claimed by respondent 
D No. 1 on the quantified amount only after 7th December, 1999 till the date of 
payment. 1707-8-C; 707-E-FI 
2. High Court misconstrued its earlier order directing the appellant to 
deposit the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court and 
permitting the land owners to withdraw 50 per cent of such amount without 
E security and the remaining 50 per cent upon furnishing of security. High Court 
appears to have missed sight of the fact that when the direction was given in 
earlier order to the appellant herein to deposit the enhanced amount of 
compensation, the award was yet to be finalized and that the award was 
ultimately finalized on 7th December, 1999 by this court and that respondent 
F No. 1 would, therefore, be entitled to compensation in terms of the amount 
as quantified on 7th December, 1999. In the light of the order passed by this 
Court on 7th December 1999, quantifying the compensation amount to include 
solatium and interest, the provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the Act would 
no long<!r be attracted. [707-G-H; 708-A-B) 
G 
Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 sec 211, referred to. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1876 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27. l 0.2004 of the High Court of 
Madras in C.R. No. 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.