Allahabad High Court
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly vs Malik Sartaz Wali Khan & Another on 4 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ALL 441
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Rajul Bhargava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 9 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 505 of 2014 Revisionist :- Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly Opposite Party :- Malik Sartaz Wali Khan & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- B.D. Mandhyan,M.C.Chaturvedi,Satish Mandhyan Counsel for Opposite Party :- M.H. Zaidi,Mahtab Alam Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the revisionist and Shri Mahtab Alam for the opposite party. The instant revision at the instance of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly is directed against the order dated 26.02.2003 passed in Execution Case No.1 of 2003. The Execution Case was instituted for executing an award of the Court made on 20.09.2000, which has subsequently been modified by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.515 of 1999 directing payment of 30% solatium, on the compensation awarded. Before the executing Court,two questions arose for determination. The first was whether the solatium awarded by the Apex Court, while modifying the award, would attract payment of interest, thereon. The other issue was regarding the mode of calculation of the compensation awarded. By the order impugned, the executing Court has held that any payment made is to be first adjusted towards interest and costs and thereafter, towards the principal outstanding. In so far as, this part of the impugned order is concerned, there appears to be no dispute between the parties.
The only issue in this revision is that the executing Court has held that solatium is part of the compensation and therefore, in view of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, interest is liable to be paid thereon, also.
The contention of Shri M.C. Chaturvedi appearing for the revisionist is that solatium become part of the compensation awarded only after incorporation of sub section 1-A in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act w.e.f. 24.09.1984. Prior to this incorporation, there was no statutory provision requiring payment of solatium. Therefore, the solatium amount held payable to the claimant in this case is on account of the decree of the Apex Court. Interest on this amount would be payable only if the Apex Court had directed payment of interest. No such direction was issued and therefore, the executing Court could not have gone behind the decree and granted relief beyond that granted by the decree to be executed. The other limb of the argument is that the solatium had been made part of the compensation payable and calculated under Section 23 on account of incorporation of Sub-section 1-A, in the said Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. This incorporation has been made almost a decade after the acquisition proceedings and after the award of the Collector was made on 22.10.1973.
Counsel appearing for the claimant opposite party has tried to justify the award of interest on the solatium. He has placed reliance upon the citation referred to in the impugned order itself.
He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Seshan and others Vs. Specil Tehsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, Spicot, Pudukkottai (1996) 8 SCC 89. In this case, the Apex Court has held that a claimant is entitled to compensation as provided by the amended Sections 34, 28 and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act No.68 of 1934, in case, the award of the Collector was made after the introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, which culminated in the amending Act No.68 of 1984. Although, this judgement has been cited by the counsel for the claimant opposite party, in my considered opinion, it holds against him.
From a bare reading of the judgement and the ratio thereof, it necessarily follows that the amending provisions of Sections 34, 28 and 32 would not be applicable to the cases, where the award of the Collector has been made prior to the introduction of the Bill, which culminated in the amending Act No.68 of 1984. In the case at hand, the award of the Collector was made in October 1973.
I, therefore, find substance in the submission of counsel for the revisionist that on the date of the award in favour of the claimant opposite party, solatium, if any, was not part of the compensation payable. Therefore, interest thereon, would accrue only if the decree directed for payment of interest on the solatium awarded.
No interest appears to have been directed to be paid on the solatium. In absence of a decree for payment of interest on solatium, it was not open for the executing Court to have awarded interest, thereon, relying upon a provision, namely, Sub-section 1-A of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been incorporated in the statute book more than a decade after the award was made in favour of the claimant. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order in so far as it grants interest also on solatium cannot be sustained and is liable to be and is hereby, set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the executing Court on 26.02.2003 is hereby set aside only to the extent it provides and takes into takes into account, payment of interest on the solatium awarded to the claimant opposite party. The matter is remitted back to the executing Court to calculate the compensation payable, afresh. It is, further clarified that the re-calculation shall be made without calculating any interest on the amount of solatium, which is payable to the claimant opposite party.
Order Date :- 4.5.2018 RKM