Karnataka High Court
Basappa Veerabhadrappa Hurakadli And ... vs The Assistant Commissioner And Land ... on 28 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)KARLJ409
Author: S.R. Bannurmath
Bench: S.R. Bannurmath
ORDER S.R. Bannurmath, J.
1. Though the matter is posted for admission with the consent of the learned Counsels on both sides, the same is taken up for final consideration.
2. The petitioners have obtained a decree/award against the respondent in L.A.C. No. 42 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad, dated 31-1-1995. The same award came to be affirmed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 1885 of 1995. As per the award, the decree-holders were entitled to the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per acre with 30% solatium as well as additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum as per the provisions of Section 23(1-A) read with Section 30 of the amended Act from the date of notification under Section 4(1) till the date of award or till the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The award also further made it clear that the decree-holders are entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation.
3. The petitioners sought to execute the award in Execution Case No. 429 of 1995 which was filed before the Civil Court, Dharwad which later on bifurcation of the jurisdiction and formation of new district of Gadag was transferred to Civil Court at Gadag and was renumbered as Execution Case No. 17 of 2001. In the execution case, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21, Rules 30 and 43 read with Rule 151 of the CPC, for attachment and sale of judgment-debtors properties on the ground that only partial payment has been made which is not in compliance with the award already passed. This application has now been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadag, which is impugned herein in the present petition.
4. The Executing Court has raised two questions for consideration.--
(i) Whether the decree-holders are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter the interest at the rate of 15% on the solatium and additional amount at 12%? and
(ii) Whether the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India, (2001)7 SCC 211 is applicable and can be extended to the awards already passed by the Court or it can be extended to pending LAC cases only?
On hearing the learned Counsels on both sides, in my view, the questions raised are no longer required to be reconsidered in view of the clear findings of the Apex Court in Sunder's case, supra. While considering similar question, the Apex Court has laid down thus.--
"The question of payment of interest would arise only when the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. It is inequitable that the person who is deprived of the possession of the land on account of acquisition proceedings is not given the amount which law demands to be paid to him; any delay thereafter would only be to his detriment. There must be a provision to buffet such iniquity. It is for the purpose of affording relief to the person who is entitled to such compensation when the payment of his money is delayed that the provision is made in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act".
It was further observed that:
"From the constitutional perspective the word "compensation" for the property taken was understood as the just equivalent of the value of the property. But when compensation is regarded as a statutory obligation the academic definitions need not detract the Courts in fathoming the real import of it. The exercise can be done with the aid of the provisions in the statutes. So what the Court, in the context of land acquisition, has to decide is how the Act has designed the compensation vis-a-vis the liability to pay interest".
5. On consideration of the aforesaid law declared, it is clear that it is the legal obligation of the judgment-debtor to pay "the compensation awarded by him" to the parties entitled thereto and the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per Sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. Thus it is clear from Section 34 that the expression 'awarded amount' would be the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23 including all the sub-sections thereof.
6. Presently there is no dispute regarding this aspect as the learned Civil Judge himself has accepted this proposition but the problem is as to alleged prospective or retrospective nature of the law declared. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Civil Judge has his own doubt as to whether benefit as given in Sunder's case, supra, by the Apex Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the award is passed in the present case on 31-1-1985 and affirmed on 5-2-1988 by this Court, whereas the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder's case, supra, was on 19-9-2001. As such the learned Civil Judge has opined that the decree-holders cannot take advantage of the judgment of the Apex Court to calculate the interest on the solatium and additional marked value since the award passed by the Trial Court has to be executed as it is and unless and until the award is modified, amended or renewed. The learned Civil Judge held that the decree-holders are not entitled to interest at solatium and additional market value at 12%.
7. On considering the arguments on both sides, in my view, this view of the learned Civil Judge appears to be an erroneous view. It is to be seen that the award contains all the details of liability of the judgment-debtor. The only doubt as expressed by the learned Single Judge is in respect of interest. In the decree it is stated thus.--
"The claimants are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9%- p.a. on the enhanced compensation for a period of one year from the date of dispossession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. upto the date of deposit of the amount".
8. As laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder's case, supra, the word 'compensation' does include all the benefits flowing thereof. It is also to be noted that the statute itself provides for payment of solatium and interest thereon which is part and parcel of the amount for which the claimant is entitled to. No doubt, the amount ordered by the Land Acquisition Officer may be enhanced or reduced. In the case of enhancement, there would be simultaneous increase in the amount of solatium and correspondingly the entire interest amount to be paid and thus at the time of execution all these amounts are to be taken together for consideration. There is no question of the applicability of law either prospectively or retrospectively. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has clarified as to the question of law which even finds favour in the present case and as rightly has been accepted by the learned Civil Judge. Hence, the rejection of the petitioners prayer under Order 21, Rules 30 and 43 read with Rule 151 of the CPC appears to be incorrect.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, dated 31-1-1995 is set aside and it is held that the decree-holders are entitled for interest on solatium and additional market value at 12% as per the award and statutory provisions clarified by the Apex Court in Sunder's case, supra.
10. In view of the above, the memo of calculation filed by the decree-holder as on the date of the filing of the application has to be accepted as on that day and necessary action be taken.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.