Punjab-Haryana High Court
Laxmi Narain And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 May, 2009
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.05.2009
Laxmi Narain and others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. The parties have been locked up in litigation for a matter relating to the appropriate calculation of the amount found by the Court as just compensation payable under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The payments have been made in part by the Government Judgment Debtor and the issues are whether the appropriations made by the decree-holder conform to law and whether the amount claimed by the decree-holder as still due and payable is correct or not.
2. By the judgment dated 12.05.1997, the Additional District Judge, Ambala had accepted an enhancement of compensation in a reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court found that the claimants would be entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.2,80,000/- towards the price of the brick C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -2- kiln and loss of earnings and held that in addition, the claimants would also be entitled to a solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and that further an additional rate of interest of 12% per annum, besides other statutory benefits. The manner of reckoning the component of solatium was settled by a Five Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India and others (2001-3) CXXIX PLR 861, which laid down the "awarded amount"
could mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act in Section 23 including all the sub-sections and consequently the sum of Rs.30,000/- determined by the Reference Court as the loss of profits was also a component of the amount awarded and the solatium was bound to be added on the said amount also.
3. When the application was presented by the decree-holder, the decree-holder gave credit to Rs.7 lacs which had been paid before the filing of the application and further process in execution was sought by attachment and sale for an amount of Rs.5 lacs alleged to be due to the decree-holder. The State objected to the amount as claimed by the decree-holder when the Government had submitted a B-Form Statement where it worked out a memo of calculation and gave out a figure of Rs.3,46,028/- as payable to the decree-holder (Annexure P-
4). A revised calculation was also given subsequent to an order dated 20.04.2002 when according to the Judgment Debtor an amount of Rs.45,641/- alone was payable. The order dated 20.04.2002 took note of the fact that solatium and interest was payable also on the basis of the loss of interest, which was to be added to the value of the brick C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -3- kiln. This order was in conformity to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. The learned Judge accepted the revised statement given by the Judgment Debtor and the Judgment Debtor was directed to pay the amount with interest upto the date of deposit of the decretal amount by its order dated 24.08.2002. It is this order which is challenged by the decree-holder.
4. The matter was placed before the Lok Adalat for considering the respective calculations given by the decree-holder and the Judgment Debtor. According to the decree-holder, an amount of Rs.6,93,357.10 was still payable. The Northern Railway, which was the beneficiary under the acquisition proceedings found that the calculation as given by the party making the amount payable was not correct and that the amount as calculated and as found in the revised B-Form Statement, Rs.3,03,381/- alone was acceptable by the Railways and that it was prepared to deposit the amount if the party gave an affidavit before the Lok Adalat that they will not demand any further amount. The matter could not be settled at the Lok Adalat and hence it was referred back to this Court for conclusion of hearing. Before this Court, the decree-holder, at the time of making his submissions has given a revised calculation under the terms of which the petitioner now claims that the amount payable is Rs.11,20,234/- as on date. I have gone through the calculations filed by the respective parties and I find that there is a flaw in the calculations made by the parties in not making appropriations and not working out interest on the awarded amounts in the manner that the law provides.
5. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act sets out the various C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -4- matters as determinants of the amount of compensation that is payable. It states, inter alia, that market value of the land and the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession as relevant. These two heads of claims that went into reckoning of Reference Court were: Rs.2,50,000/- as the amount payable for the brick kiln and Rs.30,000/- as payable towards the loss of profits. In all, therefore, Rs.2,80,000/- was found as the amount payable in excess of what was determined by the Collector at the first instance. Section 23 (1-A) states that in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall also award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Clause 2 of the said Section refers that in addition to the market value of the land as provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30% on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. This, in common and in legal parlance, has come to be understood as the solatium. The interest component as provided as well as the solatium shall be on the awarded amount, which in this case is Rs.2,80,000/- (Rs. 2,50,000/- for the brick kiln and Rs.30,000/- for loss of profits). Thus, Rs.2,80,000/- shall be treated initially as the principal amount. The interest, which Clause 1-A provides shall be the interest on Rs.2,80,000/- from the date of publication under Section 4 (1) till the date of the award of the Collector or date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier. In this case, the date of C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -5- taking of possession is said to be 09.11.1987. The revised B-Form Statement given by the Government makes reference to the total amount of Rs.2,80,000/- correctly and has worked out as 30% solatium to arrive at an amount to Rs.84,000/-. It has provided for an additional amount of 12% from 16.01.1984 (Section 4 notification) to 09.11.1987, which is the date of taking of possession. The interest component works out to Rs.1,28,146.66. In sum, as per the decision of the Reference Court, the total amount, which was payable was Rs.4,92,146.66. The amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.36,897/- and the balance as per the award of the Civil Court was Rs.4,55,249.66, which shall hereafter be treated as the principal.
6. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act also provides for an additional amount which the Collector in appropriate cases may be directed to pay, if in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation. The sum shall comprise of interest on such excess @ 9% from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess amount into Court. Apart from payment of interest, Section 27 contemplates costs which states that the costs shall ordinarily be paid by the Collector when the award of the Collector is not upheld. In this case, such statutory benefits have also been provided in the judgment, which must be understood as the interest as provided under Section 28 and costs as provided under Section 27. Costs have been specifically assessed at Rs.5,00/- but with reference to the further interest we only find that the Court has held that the claimant was entitled to "other C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -6- statutory benefits."
7. If we must, therefore, see that the Court was awarding interest @ 9% from the date of the actual possession till the date of actual deposit, it should be understood as an amount of interest payable @ 9% from 09.11.1987 till 15.10.1997 when a deposit was made by the Government. The period comes to 9 years 11 months 6 days. As per Section 28, the Government was liable to pay interest @ 9% on the excess amount namely Rs.4,55,249.66 for one year from the date of taking possession, which works out to Rs.40,972.47. Interest @ 15% shall again be on Rs.4,55,249.66, from 09.11.1988 to 15.10.1997 i.e. for 8 years, 11 months and 6 days i.e. Rs.6,10,034.54. If we add Rs.500/- as costs, the amount that was payable on 15.10.1997 would aggregate to Rs.11,06,756.67. The amount deposited by cheque No.E-366250 dated 15.10.1997 was Rs.8,03,376/-. The balance that stood payable as on that date after the amount was deposited was Rs.3,03,380.67. Interest on Rs.3,03,380.67 from 16.10.1997 to 24.10.2002 nearly five years again was Rs.2,27,535/-. In sum, the amount that was payable on 24.10.2002 was Rs.5,30,916.17. The amount paid on 24.10.2002 was Rs.45,641/-. The amount payable on that date shall be Rs.4,85,275.17. Since the above sum was in excess over Rs.4,55,249.66, which should be taken as the principal sum due as per the award, however, interest shall be calculated only on the said principal amount of Rs.4,55,249.66. Interest @ 15% shall be payable only on this sum of Rs.4,55,249.66 from 24.10.2002 till the actual date of payment in addition to the amount of Rs.4,85,275.17 C.R. No.4339 of 2003 (O&M) -7- determined already as the balance of amount payable. The amount payable till 25.05.2009 shall be Rs.9,34,833.55 and the same shall be deposited with the costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- and the civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 29, 2009 Pankaj*