Not Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7027-7028 OF 2004

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 3½ 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 3½% 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 )