Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 305 (AP)

Dharavath Bhojya v. Land Acquisition Officer

2007-03-21

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2007
Judgment :- The petitioners held, in all, an extent of Ac.38-09 guntas of land situated in Chinthapally village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, indifferent survey numbers. The same was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying a new broad guage line between Bibinagar and Nadikudi, by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (for short "the Act"). After completing preliminary formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer-the respondent herein, passed an award, dated 08-02-1996, fixing the market value between Rs.3,500/- to Rs.5,660/- per acre, depending upon the categories. The petitioners received the compensation under protest and made a request to the respondent to refer the matter to the civil Court, under Section 18 of the Act. The request was acceded to, and the reference made by the respondent came to be taken up as O.P.No.12 of 1989 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirayalguda. Through its judgment, dated 28-04-1990, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.54,150/- per acre, uniformly, for all categories of the acquired lands, and extended the statutory benefits. A.S.No.2744 of 1990 filed by the respondent before this court against the decree in O.P.No.12 of 1989 was dismissed on 14-12-1998. The petitioners filed three execution petitions, namely, E.P.Nos.31/99, 41 of 2001 and 81 of 2001 in various combinations. The respondent deposited the decretal amount. E.P.No.31 of 1999 was closed on 27-03-2001 and the particulars of closure of other EPs., are not immediately available. Uncertainty prevailed as to the entitlement of the land owners, to be paid the additional market value, interest thereon, and interest on solatium (for short "the benefits") in respect of the acquisitions made under Section 23(1-A) and other relevant provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, through its judgment, dated 19-09-2001, in SUNDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA ((2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211) held that the benefits are extendible. The petitioners filed I.A.No.95 of 2002 in the trial court seeking amendment of the decree in O.P.No. 12 of 1989 to provide for payment of the benefits. The I.A. was ordered and the decree was amended by the trial court through order, dated 21-03-2002. As a sequel to this, the petitioners filed E.P.No.7 of 2003 to recover the amount representing the benefits. The respondent opposed the application. The Executing Court dismissed the E.P., through its order, dated 20-11-2006. Hence, this civil revision petition. The I.A. was ordered and the decree was amended by the trial court through order, dated 21-03-2002. As a sequel to this, the petitioners filed E.P.No.7 of 2003 to recover the amount representing the benefits. The respondent opposed the application. The Executing Court dismissed the E.P., through its order, dated 20-11-2006. Hence, this civil revision petition. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Executing Court proceeded on a wrong assumption of law and facts and did not take into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sundar's case (1 supra). He contends that the benefits were denied on a hyper technical view of the matter and by application of principles, which do not have any bearing on the present controversy. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the other hand, submits that the decree passed by the trial court in O.P.No. 12 of 1989 and affirmed by this court in A.S.No. 2744 of 1990 was satisfied in its entirety, as is evident with the closure of E.P.No.31 of 1999. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GURPREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA ((2006) 8 Supreme Court cases 457), he contends that dismissal of the E.P. is proper. The petitioners came to be paid the amounts, at various stages, towards compensation. The first part of it was paid, when the award was passed by the respondent. The compensation was enhanced by the civil court in O.P.No.12 of 1989. The respondent filed A.S.No.2744 of 1990. Initially, a conditional interim order was passed subject to deposit of half of the enhanced compensation and the petitioners were permitted to withdraw half of the deposited amount. Therefore, the petitioners have withdrawn the amount, so permitted, as the second installment. After hearing both the parties, this court made the interim order absolute and permitted the entire deposited amount to be withdrawn by the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners have withdrawn the balance of the deposited amount. The fourth stage is subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal. The respondent deposited the balance of decretal amount according to his calculation. The E.P. was closed on 27-08-2001, may be by making a reference to the plea of the petitioners that it shall be without prejudice to their right to file fresh application. The fourth stage is subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal. The respondent deposited the balance of decretal amount according to his calculation. The E.P. was closed on 27-08-2001, may be by making a reference to the plea of the petitioners that it shall be without prejudice to their right to file fresh application. In Gurpreet Singh's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question as to the stage, upto which, the benefit of additional market value, interest thereon and interest on solatium can be extended in the cases, that were decided, by the time the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Sundar's case (1 supra). After discussing the matter at length, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in Courts all over the country, we permitted counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the reference court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder (supra) on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the reference court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the reference court or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question." From this, it becomes clear that three situations are contemplated i.e., (a) If the question as to the entitlement of the claimants for the benefits was dealt with and the same was rejected, the claimants are not entitled to be paid the same. (b) If the question was not dealt with either way and the controversy was left untouched, the claimants shall be entitled for the benefits. (c) Even if a claimant is, otherwise, entitled to, he cannot be extended the benefit, if the execution was closed. In the present case, had the proceedings stopped with the closure or dismissal, which were matured to call it, of E.P.No.31 of 199 on 27-08-2001, the third contingency pointed out in Gurpreet Singh's case (2 supra), would have become relevant and this court would not have found any difficulty in dismissing the C.R.P. However, one important development has taken place. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundar's case (1 supra), the petitioners filed I.A.No. 95 of 2002 to amend the decree. It is not known as to whether any serious resistance was offered by the respondent to that application. The fact, however, remains that the I.A. was allowed through order, dated 21-03-2002 i.e., subsequent to the closure of E.P.No.31 of 99 and the claim for additional market value, interest thereon as well as solatium, was incorporated in the decree. In view of this development, a modified decree came into existence. The petitioners filed the present E.P. to seek execution of the modified part of the decree. Therefore, it cannot be said that the execution, insofar as it related to the benefits, was closed. In view of this development, a modified decree came into existence. The petitioners filed the present E.P. to seek execution of the modified part of the decree. Therefore, it cannot be said that the execution, insofar as it related to the benefits, was closed. The Executing Court applied the principles relating to reopening of the matter in the context of review of judgments etc., and dismissed the E.P. The same cannot be sustained in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. This court, however, feels that the petitioners cannot be extended the benefits in question beyond a reasonable point of time, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundar's case (1 supra). Accrual of interest deserved to be stopped, after a point so that it does not become a wind fall for the petitioners at the cost of public exchequer. This becomes imminent in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which are not contemplated in the usual enforcement of the various provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to persuade this court to take a different view in this context either on facts or in law. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The Executing Court shall take up E.P.No.7 of 2003 and permit the parties to file their own calculation memos. The interest on additional market value and solatium shall be restricted upto 31-10-2001. There shall be no order as to costs.