Skip to content


M.S. Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. the Collector - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in97Ind.Cas.933; (1926)51MLJ309
AppellantM.S. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
RespondentThe Collector
Cases ReferredRangaswami Chatty v. The Collector of Coimbatore
Excerpt:
- .....chelty v. the collector of coimbatore (1909) 7 m.l.t. 78 in which it was stated that the claimants were entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum and also to a judgment of the privy council in narsingh das v. secretary of state for india (1924) l.r. 52 indap 133 where at the very end of the judgment, their lordships state:a small matter of the judgment was the omission of the right to interest to which the appellant is entitled at the rate of 6 per cent....3. in neither of these cases is the question whether the court is bound to award interest under section 28 discussed and that point is not altogether free from doubt. however, in the present case it appears that the claimants did not put forward any extravagant claims but claims which were allowed to a considerable extent......
Judgment:

1. Two points have been raised in this appeal: (I) that interest at 6 per cent should have been awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and (2) that compensation for Survey No. 791 should have been fixed at Rs. 16-8-0 per cent instead of Rs. 15

2. As regards the first point we have been referred to the case in Rangaswami Chelty v. The Collector of Coimbatore (1909) 7 M.L.T. 78 in which it was stated that the claimants were entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum and also to a judgment of the Privy Council in Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State for India (1924) L.R. 52 IndAp 133 where at the very end of the judgment, their Lordships state:

A small matter of the judgment was the omission of the right to interest to which the appellant is entitled at the rate of 6 per cent....

3. In neither of these cases is the question whether the Court is bound to award interest under Section 28 discussed and that point is not altogether free from doubt. However, in the present case it appears that the claimants did not put forward any extravagant claims but claims which were allowed to a considerable extent. This being so, we think, to use the words in Rangaswami Chatty v. The Collector of Coimbatore (1909) 7 M.L.T. 78 that they were entitled to interest at 6 per cent., but in coming to this conclusion we must not be held to express any opinion as to whether Section 28 is mandatory or not. The claim to interest will be allowed on the merits of the case from the date of taking possession of the land, namely, 9th March, 1922, to the date of payment.

4. As regards the second point, it appears that the question has not been dealt with by the District Judge and possibly this may be due to the fact that the original claim in respect of Survey No. 791 was put in by Abhirami Ammal who was not one of the claimants in the District Court. The award in respect of this land and a number of other lands has been made jointly in the names of Abhirami Ammal, her sister and three reversioners and the objection, was raised in the District Court by the reversioners. As they are interested in the compensation, the question could be raised by them and we must enhance the rate awarded as it is admitted that Survey No. 791 stands in the same category as the other lands for which Rs. 16-8-0 per cent was awarded.

5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs and the Lower Court's order modified accordingly.

6. Under Section 82 we fix the time for performance as one month from this date.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //