Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 215 (PNJ)

Improvement Trust, Patiala v. Gobinder Singh

2006-01-25

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
ORDER VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. An amount of Rs.3,94,400/- was paid as compensation to the respondents on account of compensation under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’). The aforesaid amount was paid to the claimants by the Trust. The said amount was paid to them after the claimants had furnished a Bank guarantee. However, later on, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it was held that the claimants were not entitled to the aforesaid benefit of Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act. Consequently, the aforesaid amount was required to be returned/ refunded. The said amount was duly refunded by the claimants. The Trust claimed that they were entitled. To interest at the rate of 15% on the aforesaid refund. The said claim made by the Trust was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Patiala, vide order dated May 25,1998. 2. The Trust has now approached this Court through the present revision petition. 3. I have heard Sh.M.L. Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Trust and have also gone through the record of the case. 4. It is not disputed that the original amount paid by the Trust has since been refunded since the claimants were found not entitled to the same as per the later law declined by the Supreme Court. Sh.Saini, however, claims that since the claimants have earned themselves interest on the aforesaid amount, therefore, the Trust was entitled to interest also. 5. I find myself unable to agree with the said contention. The refund of the aforesaid amount is in fact a restitution in favour of the Trust. Under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if any benefit has been taken by any person under some orders/decree of the Court and subsequently, the said order/decree is set aside either by the Appellate Court or by some other competent Court, then the original benefits drawn by the person are required to be restituted. It is not disputed that the original amount received by the claimants has since been refunded, the Trust is not entitled to any further amount. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.