Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India Through Defence Estates ... vs Chandan Singh Son Of Tek Chand on 9 April, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6345 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.04.2013
Union of India through Defence Estates Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi
Cantt.
...Petitioner
versus
Chandan Singh son of Tek Chand, and others ....Respondents
& Civil Revision Nos.6369 to 6377, 2863, 5311, 5312 of 2011;
142, 155, 156, 162, 923 of 2013 (O&M)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Chander Chauhan, Advocate,
for the respondents in CR Nos.6345, 6369 to 6377,
5311, 5312 of 2011, 142, 923 of 2013.
Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocates,
for the respondents in CR Nos.155 and 162 of 2013.
Mr. P.K.Chugh, Advocate, for
Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate,
for the respondent in CR No.6345 of 2011.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. All these civil revisions are frivolous and a hopeless waste of time. The Union is in revision contending for an untenable position that the respective orders passed under the Land Civil Revision No.6345 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Acquisition Act do not provide for interest and the landowners have claimed interest from the date of the Collector's award, which, according to him, is erroneous. The assumption is, the interest component that is liable for deposit is a matter of discretion and unless it is specifically provided by the order of the Reference Court, the landowners cannot claim the same.
2. The amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in 1984 have brought about important changes in so far as it introduces Section 23(1-A) that spells out interest at 12% from the date of Section 4 notification till the date of taking possession or the award whichever is earlier, whenever the Reference Court passes an additional compensation to what is determined by the Collector. The other important change that was brought through the amendment was to allow for a higher percentage on solatium with 30% interest on the amount determined by the Reference Court as market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. The additional amount which is directed to be paid under Section 23 (1-A) is therefore statutorily protected. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is another provision relating to interest where the Collector on determination of compensation payable is required to deposit the amount and if the Reference Court determines the compensation higher than what the Collector had determined and which the Reference Court observes to be the amount which the Civil Revision No.6345 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, the excess sum over which the Collector passed an award shall be liable for payment of interest at 9% per annum from the date when he took possession to the date of payment on such excess amount into Court as per the Reference Court order. The element of discretion which is available is that a Court may also direct where the excess amount is paid into Court after the expiry of a period of one year, it may provide for an interest @ 15% on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court. Consequently under Section 28 also, there is a statutory mandate that the Collector deposits the amount which is assessed as in excess over what the Collector himself had determined and such deposit shall be made within one year with interest at 9%. If only the amount was not deposited within one year, the Court would also direct interest which shall be at 15%. Section 34 is yet another provision that deals with the payment of interest which the Collector is liable when he determines the compensation as payable. This is at the stage where the reference has not even come, but when he has determined the amount as the compensation payable. In such cases, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% from the date of taking possession till he actually makes the deposit. If such amount is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession, there is a statutory mandate that higher rate of interest shall be 15% for the Civil Revision No.6345 of 2011 (O&M) -4- period in excess of one year. This component of higher rate of interest admits of no discretion by the Court but it is statutorily mandated.
3. In the scheme of things therefore there is no discretion left with any Court for excluding the liability of the State with interest under the situations contemplated in the three provisions, namely, Sections 23(1-A), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. I have not been specifically shown as to what the objection of the Union is. All that the learned counsel for the Union states is that the entire amount has been paid and no amount is payable. The Court has observed that there is a statutory mandate for payments of interest under Section 28 and the absence of reference to interest in the award cannot be material at all. The issue of absence of specific direction is irrelevant, for, it is not a matter of judicial discretion, in so far as there are specific mandatory provisions discussed in paras 2 and 3 above. The counsel also argues that there is no provision for interest on solatium and the claim has been made therefor. The impugned order does not make any such direction. It it necessary to restate the law as laid down by the Supreme Court.
5. A constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has held that there exists a liability to pay interest on solatium in Sunder Versus Union of India-(2001) 7 SCC 211. This was explained in Civil Revision No.6345 of 2011 (O&M) -5- yet another constitutional Bench in Gurpreet Singh Versus Union of India-(2006) 8 SCC 457, where the Court said, if full payments had been made and decree satisfied before the decision in Sunder's case (supra), it will not be reopened. Sunder's case (supra) was decided on September 19, 2001. The above said two decisions were further explained in Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner Versus Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and others- (2010) 12 SCC 387. If full satisfaction was not recorded and there is no specific denial of interest on solatium, a claim for interest by a fresh calculation is not barred. If on the other hand, the relief of interest on solatium was specifically dealt with and rejected before the decision in Sunder's case (supra) and it had become final, it cannot be reopened again. I have not been shown through any particular reference to denial of interest on solatium. In any event, the execution Court has held that the decree holders have not claimed any such amount.
6. The revision petitions are a needless waste of precious judicial time and are dismissed with costs assessed at `2,500/- in each one of the cases.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.04.2013 sanjeev