SANTHA Vs. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894(Central Act I of 1894). THE award was passed in 5/88. THEreafter, a reference under Section 18 was made to the Sub-Court, Ranipet which was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.853 of 1991. THE learned Sub-Judge fixed the compensation at Rs.650/- per cent. THE Land Acquisition Officer, namely, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Housing, Ranipet filed an appeal against the said order before this Court which was taken on file as A.S.Nos.12 to 28 of 1995. THE appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2001, since at that time, the question of compensation viz-a-viz liability to pay the interest and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act was pending before the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516. THE Division Bench in Paragraph No.12 has held as follows: "12. We further make it clear that the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, and depending on the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to file an appropriate petition before the competent Sub-Court."

(2.) SINCE the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 19.09.2001 had held that a person who is entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium, pursuant to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.70 (Revenue) dated 30.01.2003 for giving effect to the decision of the Supreme Court. In that Government Order, in Paragraph No.3, it was stated that the person entitled to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium and additional market value awarded and that this will apply to all pending cases as on the date of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and not earlier. In effect, the Government had held that the said order will be prospectively brought into effect.

(3.) SINCE the Government order challenged is in consonance with the subsequent Supreme Court pronouncement in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 2007 (3) CTC 170, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.