Delhi District Court
6293/2010, Titled As "Rai Singh vs . Union Of India" on 4 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
Ex. No. 246/10
Paras Ram (Through LRs)
vs.
Union of India
ORDER
04.01.2016
1. An execution petition filed for payment of interest on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of Sunder Singh's case as per decree dated 21.05.1999 passed in RFA No. 142/90 and order dated 30.07.2004. It is stated that UOI filed SLP against the above said RFA which has been dismissed by Apex Court on 13.08.2010. It is further stated that Decree Holder has received enhancement as per judgment of High Court except interest on solatium in view of Sunder Singh's judgment, now followed in CA No. 6293/2010, titled as "Rai Singh Vs. Union of India"
decided by Apex Court on 05.08.2010. The present execution petition is for payment of interest part on solatium and 12% additional amount. It is prayed that JD may kindly be directed to deposit the decreetal amount with the Hon'ble Court as detailed in the statement filed by Decree Holder and further issue warrant of attachment on current amount of LAC maintained with SBI, District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi and /or other properties of JD may also be attached in the interest of justice.
Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 1/9
2. During execution proceedings, a calculation report submitted by District Nazir on the interest of solatium and additional amount. The Decree Holder objected the same and filed objections. In the objections, it is stated that the report of District Nazir is totally wrong, illegal, misconceived and contrary to law and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A sum of Rs.9,44,289/- has been attached pursuant to the report of the District Nazir, which is highly insufficient. It is further stated that the District Nazir has committed serious illegality in calculating the interest amount only on the difference of compensation granted by the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. ADJ has fixed the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.47,224/- per Bigha. Hence, the 9% and 15% interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional amount has to be calculated on the market value of the land fixed by the Hon'ble High Court i.e. interest on 30% solatuim and 12% additional amount on the acquired land at the rate of Rs.47,224/- per Bigha w.e.f. 09.10.1986 to 08.10.1987 @ 9% and from 09.10.1987 till date of payment @ 15%. However, the District Nazir has calculated the interest @ 15% for the period between 09.10.1987 to 06.09.2006, which is totally wrong, illegal, baseless and misconceived.
3. The Decree Holders prayed that Nazir be directed to file a fresh report/ calculation regarding the actual amount of interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional amount, payable to the Decree Holder. It is further prayed to direct the attachment of the balance amount.
Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 2/9
4. The Judgment Debtor filed detailed written submissions to the objections in connected case titled 'Mir Singh vs. UOI' Ex. No. 250/10/06.
5. I have heard Sh. S.S. Pawar, Ld. Counsel for the Decree Holder, Sh. Sachin Nawani, Ld. Counsel for the Judgment Debtor and perused the record.
6. In order to appreciate respective contentions of parties, it is necessary to go through the record. It is admitted case of the Decree Holder that the award announced in way back in 1986-87 and as per award the payment was received by Decree Holder. Thereafter, Decree Holder filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the court of Ld. ADJ and the same was decided in the year 1989. As per judgment/order of Ld. ADJ, Decree Holder already received amount. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was decided in the year 1999 and the payment was received as per enhancement by the Hon'ble High Court. In the present case, execution no. 114/08/99 was filed by Decree Holder. As per judgment and decree of Hon'ble High Court, in which the enhanced amount along with other components as per Sunder Singh's judgment were claimed. As per record, the said execution petition was decided as satisfied and file was consigned to Record Room on 15.10.2009.
7. Now coming to the present execution. The genesis of this execution petition lies with the order of Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 3/9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 6293/2010, titled as "Rai Singh Vs. Union of India" decided on 05.08.2010, the SLP decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the aggrieved one of the Decree Holder approaches the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dismissal of writ petition filed before the High Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment of Sunder vs. Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211; Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 457; Patel Joitara Kalidas & Ors. vs. Special LAC & Ors., 2007 (2) SCC 341; Land Acquisition Officer vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., 2010 (6) SCALE 623, held as under:
"7. In this case, the High Court, in its judgment dated 02.11.1998 and 01.12.1998, did not expressly or impliedly reject the claim for interest on solatium amount. As on date, 12 years have not expired from the date of final disposal of the matters on 20.01.2004 by this Court, dismissing the appeal of the Union of India against the judgments of the High Court. The full satisfaction of the award/decree has not been entered by the Executing Court. On the principle laid down by this Court, we are of the view that appellants will be entitled to interest on the amount of solatium. In fact, filing of the writ petition was misconceived and unnecessary. Even without filing the writ petition the appellants could have filed an Execution claiming the interest on solatium also."
8. Now the controversy emerges is that whether Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 4/9 solatium from the Era of Collector's award and Reference Award or appeal in High Court or only on High Court's enhanced amount. In order to appreciate, it is essential that the fundamental point has to be kept in mind that when the present award kept by LAC and reference under Section 18 of the Act answered by the Ld. ADJ Court, at that point of time, judgment of 'Prem Nath Kapoor & others vs. National Fertilizer', 1996 (2) SCC 71 was in force. Judgment of 'Sunder vs. Union of India', 2001 (7) SCC 211, came into force even after the decision of the High Court in respective appeals i.e. after September, 2001. The interpretation of Sunder's Case (Supra), judgment laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh's (Supra). Hence, the entitlement of any compensation of payable amount has to be calculated as per Gurpreet Singh's (Supra) judgment. In Gurpreet Singh's (Supra) case, it has been discussed the interpretation the scheme of Land Acquisition Act regarding payment to the farmers. In para 32, 33, 34 and 35, held as under:
"32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed. Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by Section 23 (1). Section 23 (1-A), Section 23 (2) and the interest contemplated by Section 34 of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the Collector in terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in deposit as contemplated, since the Collector has to pay or deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may have to be made up Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 5/9 at that stage and the principle of appropriation may apply, though, it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that stage. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the amount with or without protest.
33. The second stage occurs on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23 (1), Section 23 (1-A), Section 23 (2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. The Collector has the duty to deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made under and after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of the enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that stage in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference.
34. The third stage occurs, when in appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation as indicated already. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation when Section 28 is applied.
The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in addition to the amount awarded by the Reference Court if it had not already been deposited.
Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 6/9
35. The fourth stage may be when the Supreme Court enhances the compensation and at that stage too, the same rule would apply."
Further in para 54 of the judgment, it is held as under:
"54. 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 the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution through 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 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 and say that the Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 7/9 compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. 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 (19-9-2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question."
9. Now applying the above proposition of law in the present circumstance, the Decree Holder is now entitled for the payment for the third stage. They cannot revert back to the stage of Collector or Reference Court especially when the case of Sunder's (Supra) was not applicable. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court in appeal was silent on the point of interest on the amount of solatium and now as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Singh's case (Supra), they are entitled for amount of solatium, which is emerging out from the High Court judgment. Secondly, the Decree Holders have already received all the due amount on the date of receiving of the compensation amount along with different components as per law was enforced at that relevant time period. It is pertinent to mention here that no execution petition pending on behalf of Decree Holder for payment as per award of LAC or judgment of Reference Court. Furthermore, now 12 years Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 8/9 have elapsed, therefore, enforcement of payment on the basis of award of LAC/Collector or Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation. Therefore, Decree Holders are not entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium on the award of LAC/Collector or Reference answered by the court of Ld. Additional District Judge. The Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of solatium only as per judgment of High Court on the enhanced amount. In case Decree Holder has received interest on solatium, then no interest is payable as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Singh's case (Supra). The execution petition and the objections are decided accordingly.
Announced in the open court today the 4th January, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 04.01.2016 Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 9/9