Punjab-Haryana High Court
Man Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)103PLR738
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 3097 to 3117 or 1992 as common questions of fact and law are involved in all these cases. Facts have, however been taken from Civil Revision No. 3097 of 1992.
2. Petitioners were successful in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since there were many cases, the same were consolidated with Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1991 "Puran Wati v. Union of India". The Court as a result of discussion accepted the application aforesaid and awarded compensation to the petitioners at he rate of Rs. 900/- per Maria in respect of Nehrij/Chahi land and at the rate of Rs. 700/- per Maria in respect of other kind of land The petitioners were also held entitled for solatium at 30 per cent and interest at 9 per cent and 15 per cent per year as provided under the Act. The payment was to be made within three months from the date of passing the order. The petitioners for further enhancement and for grant of 12 per cent additional amount have filed appeals but we are not concerned with the same. The petitioners sought for execution of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below to the extent that the compensation was enhanced as also solatium and interest to which they were held entitled to. As referred to above, the main judgment was delivered in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1991, "Puran Bati v. Union of India", the operative part of which reads thus:-
"As a result of the above discussion, I accept this application and award compensation to the applicants at the rate of Rs. 900/- per marla in respect of Nehri/Chahi land and at Rs. 700/- per marla in respect of other kind of land. The applicants are also awarded solatium at 30 per cent. They shall get interest at 9 per cent and 15 per cent per year provided in the Act. Payment shall be made within three months from today by the respondents after deducting that already paid within three months. File be completed and consigned to the Record Room."
3. In the connected matters inclusive of the one, the following short order was passed:-
"This petition was consolidated with petition No. 1 of 1991 (Puran Bati etc. v. Union of India etc.) vide order dated 2nd April, 1992. For the reasons recorded therein, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is awarded enhanced compensation of Rs 900/- per marla in respect of Nehri/Chahi land and Rs. 700/- per marla in respect of other kind of land, besides solatium at 30 per cent. I also award interest thereon at 9 per cent for the first year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and at 15 per cent per annum thereafter till payment. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation after deducting the already paid within 3 months from today failing which the petitioners would be entitled to make recovery by execution. Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the Record Room".
4. The Executing Court held that both the orders that is the one passed in the main reference and the other which was a short order passed in other cases were decrees whereas the other portion of the award was deemed to be judgment within the meaning of Section 2 clause (2) and section 2 clause (9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure as provided by Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act In view of the executing Court, there was an apparent conflict. As the learned counsel appearing for the decree holders could not dispel the discrepancy in the decree portion of the award, the executing Court dismissed the application being unsatisfied. The revision has been filed against the order of the executing court as noticed above.
5. The facts reveal that the land of the petitioner was acquired vide notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 15th July, 1987 which was published on 24th September, 1987 and the Collector had given the award on 31st July, 1989. Thereafter reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed. A large number of cases were consolidated but in each case separate award was passed. However, reasons for awarding compensation were recorded in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1991 "Puran Bati v. Union of India", and a separate memorandum of costs was prepared in the case of all the petitioners in the award rendered in their case. Section 26 of the Act which provides form of awards reads thus:-
"Section 26. Form of Awards:- (1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub section (1) of Section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.
(2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2) and Section 2 Clause (9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)."
6. A perusal of sub-section (1) of section 26 would reveal that the award consists of two parts. One specifies the amount awarded and the other, grounds for awarding the said amount. As far as subsection (2) of section 26 is concerned, the award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of grounds of such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2) and section 2, clause (9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As referred to above, reasons have been recorded in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1991 and the amount as awarded has been mentioned in separate awards pertaining to the case of the petitioners. The obvious conclusion would, therefore, be that in the case of the petitioners, the award in Land Acquisition Case No 11 of 1991 would be a decree and reasons recorded in Land Acquisition No. 1 of 1991 would be judgment. The executing Court, thus, erred in dismissing the execution proceedings under misconception that both the orders that is award recording compensation as well as order providing the reasons are decree and as there is some discrepancy between the two, the award could not be executed.
7. Shri Pipat, learned senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India frankly and fairly concedes this position. The impugned order is, thus, set aside and it is directed that the executing Court could execute the award in Land Acquisition Case 11 of 1991. However, if the respondents may think that there is some mistake clerical or otherwise granting interest from the date of notification whereas it should always be open for them to make an application for correction but as long as correction is not made, the executing Court has no choice but to proceed in the matter and execute decree. The impugned order is, thus, set aside and the present Revision Petitions are allowed. However, in view of the fair stand taken by the respondents, there shall be no order as to costs. The parties have been directed to appear before the Lower Court on 7th January, 1993.