Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal vs Tapas Roy on 3 March, 2014
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
03.03.2014
Srimanta
02
C. O. 3590 of 2005
[State of West Bengal -Vs.- Tapas Roy]
With
C. O. 708 of 2005
[Tapas Roy -Vs.- The State of West Bengal]
Mr. Kartick Bhattacharyya ...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly,
Mr. Sougata Bhattacharyya.
...For the State.
Mr. S. K. Bhattacharyya
...For the Added Respondent.
Two revisional applications have been taken out against the order dated 2nd December, 2004 passed by the 5th Court of Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore in L. A. Case No. 1 of 1991. Mr. Kartick Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the award holder as petitioner in C. O. 708 of 2005 impugning the said order. Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondent in opposing the said revisional application. The State is the petitioner in C.O. 3590 of 2005 in which is also impugned the said order, as aforesaid. Mr. Ganguly, however, has not pressed any challenge made in the revisional application taken out by the State. Mr. S. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the added respondent.
In C.O. 708 of 2005 Mr. Kartick Bhattacharyya submits three points of challenge to the impugned order. The first challenge is that the learned Court in making calculation in terms of the decree as revised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the matter of calculating further additional compensation omitted to take into account for such calculation the amount of solatium. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that such additional compensation ought to have included the sum awarded on account of solatium as added to the value of the land and structure and 12 per cent thereon would be the correct additional compensation which ought to have been awarded. For this, he relies on the decision reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 (Sundar -Vs.- Union of India) in particular paragraphs 26 and 27 thereof. This Court finds in that decision the 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court had found it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the effect that solatium provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 formed an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a land owner. As such, from the plain terms of Section 28 of the said Act it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Thus, interest awardable under Section 28 of the said Act would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium.
However, the challenge raised is on the ground that in the matter of calculating further additional compensation solatium was not taken into account. Further additional compensation not being interest on the award, the decision cited cannot be made applicable to support the first challenge raised by Mr. Bhattacharyya.
The second challenge of the award holder is directed against shortfall on account of interest calculated since, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, interest is still accruing since payment has not yet been made to the petitioner. It appears from the order dated 18th November, 2003 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that 'if after giving credit for the amounts paid or deposited, it is found that compensation payable has not been paid or deposited then interest thereon, either under Section 28 or 34 will be payable from that date of the Award i.e. 16th September, 1986 till payment'.
The effect of the above direction is that credit for amounts paid or deposited must be given to the State. Only if it is found that compensation payable has not been paid or deposited then interest thereon either under Section 28 or 34 of the said Act will be payable from the date of the award, i.e. 16th September 1986 till payment. It further appears from order dated 6th July, 2004 made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that before the said Court it was already found that out of the deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- made by the State the sum of Rs.33,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon would cover the amount to be disbursed in terms of the revised decree to be calculated by the learned Executing Court below. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court directed that the balance amount along with accrued interest (Rs.27,00,000/-) being the balance amount shall be returned to the State.
It appears that the learned Executing Court below followed the direction made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and did give credit to the State for the deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- made by it in the registry of that Court and thus calculated interest payable to the petitioner. As such, the second challenge of Mr. Bhattacharyya also does not have any substance.
The third challenge of Mr. Bhattacharyya is directed towards the absence of any direction for disbursement to the petitioner of the amounts calculated to be paid to it under the revised decree. He draws the attention of this Court to the direction made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its said order dated 6th July, 2004. In that order the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that out of the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- which had been deposited in that Court, a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon was to be transferred to the Executing Court and the said amount directed to be disbursed as per the order of the Executing Court.
Mr. Bhattacharyya then draws the attention of this Court to the concluding portion of the impugned order wherein the learned Executing Court below deliberated upon the contention on behalf of the State that income-tax was liable to be deducted from interest accrued on the revised compensation to hold that since there is no specific direction of the Hon'ble Court for disbursement/payment of the amount after deducting income-tax, the said Court was unable to direct payment/disbursement after deduction of income-tax and left it at that. Mr. Bhattacharyya complains that the compensation, in any event once calculated along with interest thereon ought to have been disbursed to the petitioner.
It appears from, inter alia, order dated 10th May, 2012 made in C.O. 3590 of 2005 that the question of disbursement had been gone into by this Court in the revisional application taken out by the State against the impugned order. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), West Bengal was present in Court on that date and 4 submissions made on his behalf regarding the deposits made by the State having lapsed contributing to the non- payment or disbursement of the amounts found to be payable to the petitioner as were recorded. Today on behalf of the State a copy of letter dated 13th August, 2012 has been handed up and the same be kept on record. That letter it appears was addressed by the Senior Accounts Officer of the Legal Cell of the State to the Registrar, District Judges' Court, Alipore enclosing original lapsed deposit for payment of Rs.36,07,748/- duly authorized by that office subject to obtaining counter-signature of the District Judge at Alipore. It, therefore, appears that the impediments, if any, in the matter of disbursement of the awarded amount to the petitioner have been sought to be removed. Accordingly, there will be a direction upon the learned Executing Court below to make the disbursement of the sums found due and payable to the petitioner in C.O. 708 of 2005 within a period of four weeks from the date of service of copy of this order by the petitioner upon the learned Court below.
The revisional applications are, thus, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.)