SUB COLLECTOR Vs. R S RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the common Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 20-7-1995, made in L.A.O.P.Nos.1/90 etc., the Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District has filed the above appeals.

(2.) CERTAIN extent of lands in Aloor village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District were acquired by the Government. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published on 11-6-1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after enquiry, passed an award fixing market value at the rate of Rs.326.65 per Cent on 13-5-1989. Not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, at the instance of the land owners, the matters were referred to Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, which resulted in L.A.O.P.Nos. 1/90 etc. On consideration of the materials placed, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.812/- per cent for the acquired land and also awarded other statutory benefits. After disposal of the claim petitions, the claimants have preferred applications praying for amendment to the judgment and decree on the ground that though the award was passed on 7-9-1987 and possession taken on the same day, interest was granted only at the rate of 6 per cent. Like-wise, though solatium was granted at 30 per cent, no interest has been awarded by the Sub Court. By the impugned order dated 20-7-1995, the learned Subordinate Judge granted interest at 15 per cent for the enhanced compensation. The Sub Collector, Ramanathapuram/Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the award of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 7-9-1987, has filed the above appeals.

(3.) NOW we shall consider whether the respondents/claimants are entitled interest for solatium of 30 per cent in the absence of filing cross-objection in the present appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3571, the Supreme Court has held, (para 22) "22....We hold that the respondent-defendant in an appeal can, without filing cross-objection attack an adverse finding upon which a decree in part has been passed against the respondent, for the purpose sustaining the decree to the extent the lower Court had dismissed the suit against the defendants-respondents. The filing of cross-objection, after the 1976 Amendment is purely optional and not mandatory. In other words, the law as stated in Venkata Rao's case (AIR 1943 Mad 698) by the Madras Full Bench and Chandre Prabhuji's case (AIR 1973 SC 2565) by this Court is merely clarified by the 1976 Amendment and there is no change in the law after the Amendment."