Delhi District Court
An Application Under Section 151 Cpc ... vs Uoi 1/9 on 8 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
Ex. M-26/10
Nand Lal & Ors.
vs.
Union of India
ORDER
08.01.2016
1. An application under Section 151 CPC filed for remaining payment. It is stated that Sh. Nand Lal had not received the appellable amount of Rs.1,86,021/-. A sum of Rs.2,95,661/- has been sent to this Court, which was lying unpaid and stood deposited with the Treasury. It is further stated that Sh. Lal Chand applied for payment of compensation unpaid to their predecessor, Sh. Lal Chand. However, they have been paid a sum of Rs.1,14,800/- out of Rs.1,31,201/- and the remaining sum of Rs.16,401/-, which belongs to Sh. Ram Tirath - one of the LRs of Sh. Lala Chand, is lying with this Court. It is further stated that now the question is as to who is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.1,64,460/- out of Rs.2,95,661/- after deduction of payment of Rs.1,31,201/-. It is further stated that to the knowledge of LRs of Sh. Lal Chand, the balance amount of Rs.1,64,460/- is also payable to them as all the claimants have already received their share of compensation. The applicants undertake to refund the said amount in case any person comes forward and found entitled to it.
Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 1/9
2. During the proceedings, a calculation report submitted by 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 as per various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest @ 9% and 15% on solatium and 12% additional amount is payable to Decree Holders on the compensation awarded by Collector, the Ld. ADJ in Reference under Section 18 and Hon'ble High Court in RFA. However, LAC has unnecessarily raised objections on this entitlement of Decree Holders. The LAC has wrongfully misrepresented before this Court the calculation of the actual amount payable to Decree Holder.
3. Decree Holders taken the objections that LAC/Judgment Debtor has raised baseless and bogus objections and not followed the judgments of 'Union of India vs. Meer Singh' decided on 13.08.2010; CA No. 6293/2010, titled as "Rai Singh Vs. Union of India" decided on 05.08.2010; 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.
4. It is stated that LAC/Judgment Debtor has caused unnecessary harassment, torture and embarrassment. The LAC/ Judgment Debtor has adopted tactics to deprive the poor farmers of their entitlement to receive due compensation. It is further stated that District Nazir has made wrong calculation which is illogical and committed serious Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 2/9 lapses. It is stated that Decree Holders are entitled to interest in question from the date of award by the Collector, enhancement by the Reference Court and thereafter by Hon'ble High Court in the appeal.
5. The Decree Holders prayed that Nazir be directed to submit correct and proper report of the accrued amount which is payable to Decree Holders on 30% solatium and 12% additional amount on the compensation awarded by Collector, Reference Court and Hon'ble High Court.
6. The Judgment Debtor filed detailed written submissions to the objections in connected case titled 'Mir Singh vs. UOI' Ex. No. 250/10/06.
7. 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.
8. 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 Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 3/9 as per enhancement by the Hon'ble High Court. In the present case, execution no. 239/06 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 10.01.2008.
9. Now coming to the present execution. The genesis of this execution petition lies with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Singh (Supra), 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's case (Supra), Gurpreet Singh's case (Supra), Patel Joitara Kalidas's case (Supra) and Land Acquisition Officer's case (Supra), 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 Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 4/9 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."
10. Now the controversy emerges is that whether Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of 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 Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 5/9 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 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 Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 6/9 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.
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 Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 7/9 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 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."
11. 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 Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 8/9 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 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 8th January, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar)
ADJ-02,West/Delhi
08.01.2016
Ex. M-26/10 Nand Lal & Others vs. UOI 9/9