Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Another vs Surender Kumar & Others on 31 July, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.1841 OF 2001
DATE OF DECISION : 31st JULY, 2012
State of Haryana & another
.... Petitioners
Versus
Surender Kumar & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.3
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
State of Haryana and Land Acquisition Collector have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) to challenge order dated 31.10.2000 passed by executing Court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Hissar.
Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 (in short, the Act) was made at the instance of land owners/respondents whose land was acquired. Compensation of the acquired land was enhanced by reference Court. Land owners filed execution petition claiming enhanced compensation. State raised two-fold objection but both the objections have been overruled by the executing Court by way of impugned C.R. NO.1841 OF 2001 -
2- order which is, therefore, under challenge in this revision petition at the instance of State of Haryana.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The first objection by State relates to entitlement of land owners to interest on the amount of solatium awarded under Section 23(2) of the Act and on the amount of additional market value awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Learned executing Court held that land owners are entitled to interest on the said amounts. The said question has now been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court against the State in the cases of Chimanlal Kuberdas Modi versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and others, 2010 (10) Supreme Court Cases 635 and Mehrawal Khewalji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & others versus State of Punjab & others, 2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2250. Consequently the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity on this aspect and does not require any interference by this Court.
The second objection by State relates to appropriation of the amount deposited by the State. According to State, the amount should first be appropriated towards principal amount and then towards interest and costs whereas according to land owners, the amount should first be appropriated towards costs and interest and then towards principal amount. However, this question has also been settled by Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457. The executing Court shall decide the question of appropriation of deposited amount afresh accordingly.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
C.R. NO.1841 OF 2001 -
3-
31st July, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE