Indra Vikram Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Anr

INDRA INDRA VIKRAM SINGH & ORS. ......APPELLANTS

Versus

STATE OF M.P. & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

The appellants are the legal heirs of one Padmini Kuarba

who held the Lambardari lease in regard to certain villages in

Panna tehsil. The lease was granted on 7.12.1945 for 30 years

on an annual rent of Rs.1242.25 payable to the state

government. The said Lambardar continued in possession in

pursuance of the said lease from 1.1.1943 to 31.12.1953. The

leasehold rights of Padmini Kuarba were taken over by the state

government, vide notification dated 22.12.1953 with effect from

1.1.1954 issued under the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs

and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (for short `1952 Act'). The

resumption was challenged by the Lambardar and ultimately this

Court set aside the resumption by judgment dated 21.2.1961,

holding that her rights were not jagir rights. In pursuance of

the said decision, the leased villages were restored to the

Lambardar on 30.4.1961. The Lambardar continued in possession

from 30.4.1961 till 30.6.1966 when the Lambardari leases were

abolished by notification dated 28.6.1966 issued under Section

3 of the Madhya Pradesh Swatwadharik Adhikar Sampati (Vindhya

Pradesh) Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short `1965 Act'). As a

consequence, possession of the leased lands was taken over from

her on 1.7.1966.

2. The Collector, District Panna, by order dated 15.5.1968

determined the gross annual income to be Rs.18086.79, the

deductions to be made therefrom to be Rs.4028.74 and the net

income per annum as Rs.14058.05. By applying the multiplier of

13/6, he arrived at the compensation as Rs.30459.10. He also

determined the income from the lands for the period of

unauthorized occupation by the Government (1.1.1954 to

30.4.1961) as Rs.11,557/65. After, deducting the certain

amounts due to the Government he arrived at the amount payable

to the Lambardar as Rs.22,939.30 made up as follows:

(i) Compensation to the Lambardar under Section 4 of Act 41 of 1965 read with Section 10 and 14 of Act XI of 1952 [compensation of Rs.11,381.65 Rs.30459.10 minus Taccari dues (Rs.2928.20) and lease rentals due (Rs.16,149.28)]

(ii) Income received from the leasehold lands during the period from 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961 when possession has been

taken over under Act XI of 1952 (which was found to be illegal by this Court) Rs.11,557.65

That order was affirmed by the Board of Revenue by order dated

20.12.1968. The Lambardar challenged the order of Board of

Revenue and the High Court on 9.11.1970 quashed the order of

the District Collector and the Board of Revenue and remanded

the matter for fresh assessment, with an observation that the

calculation of compensation under the 1952 Act, should be by

excluding those provisions which would not apply to the

abolition of rights under the 1965 Act. The order of the High

Court was challenged by the State and this Court by order dated

16.7.1986 dismissed the appeal filed by the state government

and directed the second respondent (District Collector) to

determine the compensation in the light of the observations of

the High Court in its order dated 9.11.1970.

3. In pursuance of it, the second respondent passed a fresh

order dated 30.5.1988 determining compensation. The Collector,

by reiterating the earlier determination, arrived at the

average annual income to be Rs.18,086.79 and deductions to be

made as Rs.4028.74. Thus he arrived at the net income as

Rs.14,058.05 per annum. He determined the compensation payable

as Rs.140,580/50, by applying a multiplier of 10. The Collector

directed that Rs.19,077.45 due from the Lambardar to the

Government (that is Rs.2928.20 towards Taccavi with interest

upto 15.5.1968 and Rs.16,149.25 towards lease amount for 13

years at the rate of Rs.1242.25 per year) should be deducted

and the balance be paid to the legal heirs of the Lambardar. He

also reiterated that a sum of Rs.11,557.65 being the income of

the Lambardari for the period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961 be released

to legal heirs of the Lambardar. He awarded interest at the

rate of 3= per annum on the compensation amount. He did not

however grant any interest on the income determined for the

period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961 on the ground that the said

amounts had been deposited on 6.4.1968 by the Tehsildar, Panna

and District Forest Officer, Panna. The said determination was

challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased Lambardar. The

High Court by the impugned order dated 7.5.2002 upheld the

determination of compensation and the determination of income

for the period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961. The High Court however

modified the interest payable. While the Collector had granted

interest at 3=% per annum in terms of the provisions of the

Act, the High Court held that the said rate of interest would

apply only upto 9.3.1987 and the interest payable from

10.3.1987 will be at the rate of 6% per annum, as this Court

had directed that the compensation should be determined within

six months. The said order is challenged by the legal heirs of

the Lambardar in these appeals by special leave.

4. The appellants contend that the calculation of the

compensation for abolition of rights under the 1965 Act was

erroneous. They contended that the average annual income of the

Lambardar for the purpose of calculating the compensation had

to be computed by excluding the period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961

(the period when the properties were in the possession of the

State) and by dividing the income earned while the Lambardari

was under the management of the Lambardar by the number of

years during which she derived such income. The appellants also

contended that the calculation of income from the Lambardari

for the period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961 are erroneous. The

appellants contended that award of interest at 3.5% per annum

up to 9.3.1987 and 6% per annum from 10.3.1987 are very low and

interest should be awarded at 15% per annum. They lastly

contended that solatium should have been awarded.

5. The High Court found that there was no error in the

calculation of the compensation. It found that the net annual

income for purposes of determining the compensation and the

income from 1.1.1954 to 30.6.1961 calculated by the Collector

in the earlier order dated 15.5.1968 were not disturbed by the

High Court while remanding the matter by order dated 9.11.1970

and what was found to be incorrect was application of the

multiplier of 13/6. On remand, the Collector had correctly

applied the multiplier as 10 (instead of 13/6 applied in the

earlier order) for arriving at the compensation, but did not

disturb the calculation of net annual income or the income for

the period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961. Therefore as rightly held by

the High Court, there is no reason to interfere with the

compensation amount and the income for the dispossession period

determined by the Collector. The gross income, the net income

and the total compensation has been rightly calculated in terms

of clauses 3,4 and 6 of the Schedule to the 1952 Act. We also

find that the income for the period of wrongful possession

(1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961) was also calculated as per law in the

first order dated 15.5.1968 and that was reiterated in the

order dated 30.5.1988 on remand. The High Court has found that

there was no error in the calculation of the income for

1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961 and we find no reason to interfere with

the said finding.

6. In so far as interest is concerned, we find that the rate

of interest awarded is in accordance with Section 10(2) of the

1952 Act. When the statute indicates the rate of interest it

cannot be changed. Further, the High Court has increased the

interest to 6% per annum, from 10.3.1987 (that is on the expiry

of six months from the date on which this Court directed the

decision should be rendered). The question of solatium does not

arise in the absence of any provision therefor in the statute.

[See: Union of India vs. Hari Krishna Khosla - (1993) Supp. 2

SCC 149 and Union of India vs. Parmal Singh - (2009) 1 SCC

618].

7. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals as having no merit.

......................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ......................J. January 20, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )