Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2085 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Jeewan Dhar Jain

2008-12-10

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, L.N.MITTAL

body2008
JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J.:- In view of order dated 14.7.2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, application bearing C.M.No.13836 CII of 2008 is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. Review application No.88-CII of 2002 in civil revision No.3276 of 2001 is taken up for hearing. 3. Land of applicant-respondent nos.1 to 4 was acquired. On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act), compensation amount was enhanced. In first appeal, compensation was further enhanced by this Court. 4. Land owners applicant-respondent nos.1 to 4 filed execution petition for recovery of the enhanced compensation amount. Learned executing Court vide order dated 27.1.2001 held that the decree-holders are entitled to get interest on additional amount (payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act) and also on solatium. It was also held that the decree-holders can appropriate the amount, paid or deposited by the judgment debtors, firstly towards interest and costs and then towards the principal. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the executing Court, State of Haryana and Collector filed Civil Revision No.3276 of 2001 in this Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court found that the following three important questions of law arose for adjudication in the revision petition :- “(i) Whether the claimants/land-owners are entitled to claim interest on solatium ? (ii) Whether interest is to be calculated on the basis of enhancement ordered by Reference Court/High Court or the Apex Court i.e. only on the excess amount of compensation of the same has to be calculated after deducting the amount of compensation already paid ? (iii) Whether claimants/land-owners do have the right to appropriate the amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector as per their own discretion or the same has to be paid in view of the Scheme of the Act ?” 6. On question No.1, it was conceded by learned Advocate General, Haryana that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Sunder vs. Union of India & others JT 2001(8) Supreme Court 130, the decree holders are entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. Accordingly, finding of the Executing Court on this question was affirmed. 7. Accordingly, finding of the Executing Court on this question was affirmed. 7. On question No.2 , it was found that the amount earlier paid cannot be adjusted towards interest because that amount was paid towards the compensation by the Collector as determined by him or by the court and in case the amount is further enhanced by the Reference Court or the High Court/Supreme Court, in that situation, the claimants could not be allowed to turn around and to say that the amount received earlier will be adjusted towards interest and not towards the principal amount of compensation. 8. On question No.3, the learned Single Judge, after referring to the Scheme of the Act and relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapoor vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited and others (1996) 2 S.C.C. 71 concluded that the order under revision was not sustainable insofar as it provided for making appropriation of the amount deposited by the Collector, first towards costs, then interest, then additional amount and remaining to be adjusted towards the principal amount and the claimants have no right to appropriate the amount which is deposited strictly in accordance with the Award firstly towards compensation and then the other benefits accruing out of the compensation to be paid. 9. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, impugned order of the Executing Court was set aside by allowing the revision petition vide judgment dated 25.10.2001 by which bunch of similar revision petitions was disposed of, and the Executing Court was directed to disburse the compensation amount in the following manner :- “(i) That the claimants shall be entitled to interest on solatium in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder’s case (supra). (ii) That the interest shall be calculated only on the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) and not on the amount already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 and paid to the party or deposited into the Court or determined under Section 26 or Section 54 and deposited into the Court. The amount already paid, in no case, shall be adjusted towards the interest accrued on excess compensation. The amount already paid, in no case, shall be adjusted towards the interest accrued on excess compensation. (iii)That the claimants shall not be allowed to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector at their discretion and appropriation and payment shall be made strictly in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur’s case (supra).” 10. Respondent nos.1 to 4 filed review application for review of aforesaid judgment dated 25.10.2001 of the learned Single Judge. However, a Division Bench of this court, vide judgment dated 18.10.2005, dismissed the bunch review applications. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the decree-holders preferred Civil Appeal No.4365 of 2008 in Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 14.7.2008 set aside judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 of this Court (whereby review applications were dismissed in the bunch of civil revision petitions) and remitted the matter back to this Court for decision in the light of observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made by a Constitution Bench in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment dated 14.7.2008 that in the event High Court feels that while deciding the review petition, it would be appropriate for it to take the civil revision cases as well, it will be open to the High Court to take up the review petitions also along with the civil revision cases treating the orders passed by the High court in revision as set aside. 12. Accordingly, review petitions as well as civil revisions have been taken up for hearing. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. It is conceded position that the decree-holders are entitled to interest on solatium as well. It has been submitted that the only question that remains to be determined is regarding the manner of appropriation of the amount deposited by the State/judgment-debtors. 15. In so far as the question of appropriation of the amount deposited by the judgment debtors is concerned, the same is not res integra. This question has been dealt with in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra). 15. In so far as the question of appropriation of the amount deposited by the judgment debtors is concerned, the same is not res integra. This question has been dealt with in detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra). Even the Constitution Bench in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) did not over-rule the ratio of law laid down in the case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on this question. The same was rather held to be justified. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) as under :- “51. Prem Nath Kapur also indicates that when an awarddecree is passed specifying the amounts under different heads like the amount under Section 23(1), the amount under section 23(2), the amount under Section 23(1-A) and the interest under Section 28 and the judgment-debtor makes a deposit of specified sums under these different heads, it will amount to the judgment-debtor intimating the decree-holder as to how the sum deposited is to be applied in discharge of the obligation of the judgment-debtor. Once a decree-holder receives the payment of the sums thus deposited, he would be accepting the appropriation made by the judgment-debtor under the awarddecree in the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. This part of the reasoning in Prem Nath Kapur is, of course, also based on the reasoning that there is some inconsistency in Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code and the scheme of the Act. Prem Nath Kapur also indicates that when the decree itself specifies the amount payable under different heads ( the decree has to do so under Section 26 of the Act) and amounts are deposited towards those different heads, the appropriation would be on the basis of the direction under the decree which must be taken to be one for crediting the various sums paid under particular heads. On the scheme of the Act, especially the wordings of section 34 and section 28 of the Act, it is not possible to say that the said approach made in Prem Nath Kapur is erroneous or is unreasonable or is not (sic) a line of approach that is not warranted. On the scheme of the Act, especially the wordings of section 34 and section 28 of the Act, it is not possible to say that the said approach made in Prem Nath Kapur is erroneous or is unreasonable or is not (sic) a line of approach that is not warranted. Therefore, when the judgment-debtor State makes a deposit along with the calculation appropriating distinct sums towards various heads of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court or by the appellate court in the appellate decree, and the amount is received by the decree-holder, the decree-holder must be taken to be not entitled to seek an appropriation as if the judgment-debtor has not made any intimation and that he is entitled to appropriate at his volition. Considering the scheme of compensation under the Act in the context of the specific nature of the items specifically referred to in section 23 of the Act, we are of the view that the approach adopted in Prem Nath Kapur is justified..........” 16. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the matter may be remitted to the executing Court for passing fresh order in accordance with law on the question of appropriation of the amount deposited/paid by the judgment-debtors. 17. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for both the parties, we dispose of all the connected review petitions and the civil revision petitions with the following directions :- (i) the claimants/decree-holders shall be entitled to interest on additional amount and solatium. (ii) the Executing Courts shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law on the question of appropriation of the amount paid/deposited by the judgment-debtors. (iii) the parties are directed to appear before the Executing Courts for further proceedings on 29.1.2009. The Executing Courts may dispose of the matter expeditiously. ------------