Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1231 (KAR)

Karnataka Housing Board v. Derrick DSA

2019-06-13

KRISHNA S.DIXIT

body2019
JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J. 1. The judgment debtor in Ex.P.No.24/2011 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for seeking invalidation of the order dated 22.04.2017 made by the Executing Court at Annexure-'A', whereby in substance it has rejected the claim of the petitioner that no interest is payable on the solatium as awarded by the Reference Court and the interest payable on the enhanced compensation shall be from the date of taking possession and of the acquired property regardless of date of the award. After service of notice, the respondent-land loosers have entered appearance through their counsel and resist the writ petition. 2. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor submits that the impugned order suffers from two major lacunae viz a) it awards interest on the solatium and b) it directs the accrual of interest on the compensation from the date of award as contradistinguished from the date on which the possession of the property is taken. In support of his contention he banks upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of GURPREET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2006) 8 SCC 457 PARAS 54 & 36. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent land losers controverts the submission of the petitioner side and contends that the rights of the parties having already been determined by the judgment and award of the Reference Court and further the order of this Court on challenge thereto, what the Executing Court has done is perfectly in accordance with law. So arguing he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the writ petition papers and adverted to the Apex Court ruling cited at the Bar. 5. In a any suit, decree decides the rights of the parties; award of compensation for the acquisition of the lands partakes the character of a decree; it is the duty and power of the executing Court to ensure that the fruits of the decree/award reach the hands of the decree holder/awardee. Therefore, we need to ascertain what the award of the Reference Court says and whether that say is modified by the order of the this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. If this is done, the road to justice becomes clear. 6. Therefore, we need to ascertain what the award of the Reference Court says and whether that say is modified by the order of the this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. If this is done, the road to justice becomes clear. 6. The relevant potion of the award dated 26.08.2010 made by the Reference Court in LAC No.16/1994, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B reads as under: "5.That the claimants are also entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value. 6. That the claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on such enhanced amount for a period of one year form the date of award and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of the deposit or payment." 7. The above award was put in challenge by the writ petitioner herein in MFA No. 27/2011 (LAC) and also by the respondent/land losers in MFA NO. 10124/2010 (LAC). This Court vide common judgment dated 27.10.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C, vide paragraph No.12 dismissed appeal of the petitioner and vide paragraph No.13 allowed the appeal of the respondent land losers "by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in LAC No. 16 and 25 of 1994 ..The appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent along with other statutory benefits payable under Land Acquisition Act." 8. The text of award of the Reference Court, supra leaves no manner of doubt that the interest is ordered to be paid "from the date of award", the expression "from the date of taking the possession of the land" being conspicuously absent. The challenge to the award by the petitioners on the appellate side has been negatived by this Court by way of dismissal; the modification of the award is made by allowing the appeals of the respondent land losers directing enhancement of compensation. The executing Court having rightly understood the text & context of the award of the Reference Court and the common judgment of this Court has directed payment of interest that would accrue from the date of the award and not from the date of taking possession. An argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without straining the text & context of the award in reference and the said judgment in appeals. An argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without straining the text & context of the award in reference and the said judgment in appeals. This Court on the writ side does not undertake such misadventures. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Judgment Debtor that the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Case supra, arguably has ruled payment of interest from the date of taking possession of the land does not come to the aid of the petitioner who should have pressed into service the said ratio while prosecuting their appeals against the award of the Reference Court. An award or a decree which has otherwise attained finality by dismissal of appeal against the same, notwithstanding that it transcends the ratio of the Apex Court is nevertheless valid and enforceable with its face value. Invocation of the said ruling before the executing Court or before this Court is impermissible. An argument to the contrary amounts to asking the executing Court to go behind the decree and alter its terms. This is impermissible. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS VS. GURDEV SINGH & ASHOK KUMAR, (1992) AIR SC 111 has observed that a wrong order remains to be valid and enforceable till after it is set aside by the competent Court in appropriate proceedings known to law. 10. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Judgment Debtor that the award of the Reference Court has not directed payment of interest on the solatium and therefore, no interest can be levied on the solatium spurns the text of the very award itself. The language employed in the operative portion of the award does not admit such an argument. The contention that the Apex Court in case of Sunder Vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 has ruled that "no interest is payable on the solatium unless specifically directed" does not come to the aid of the petitioner Judgment Debtor inasmuch as the award employs the expression " the claimant is also entitled for interest on such enhanced amount ". Therefore, it can be safely construed that the award in so many words directs payment of interest on the solatium as well. In interpreting the terms of decree or award, commonsense cannot be kept in cold storage. Therefore, it can be safely construed that the award in so many words directs payment of interest on the solatium as well. In interpreting the terms of decree or award, commonsense cannot be kept in cold storage. In the above circumstances, no other ground having been urged, writ petition is dismissed.