Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India vs Manjit Singh And Others on 25 November, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.11.2014
Union of India
....Petitioner
Versus
Manjit Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mrs. K.K.Kahlon, Sr.Standing Counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
This order shall decide a bunch of 47 Revision Petitions bearing Nos.4345, 4526, 4903, 4905 to 4909, 4934, 5240, 5244, 5267, 5270 to 5275, 5288, 5292 to 5294, 5304, 5439 to 5447, 5613 to 5621, 5910 to 5912 and 6052, 7024 and 7025 of 2014 in which the same order passed by the Executing Court is under challenge. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CR No.4345 of 2014 titled as Union of India Vs. Manjeet Singh and others.
Basically, the petitioner is aggrieved against part of the impugned order whereby they have been directed to deposit the amount of statutory interest on solatium and 12% on market value within a period of MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -2- three months.
In brief, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') dated 11.7.1977, land measuring 11513 Kanals of village Kathania, Had Bast No.356 was proposed for acquisition, followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 19.7.1980, for public purpose, namely, for `Defence of India'. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short `the Collector') announced the award on 20.5.1982 and also rendered a supplementary award on 2.9.1986, after coming into force of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and awarded interest as per the Amended Act. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector and filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector, who referred them to the Civil Court where the market value of the acquired land was reassessed @ `18150/- per acre alongwith solatium and interest as provided in Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act.
In Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court again assessed the market value of the acquired land, while deciding LPA No.729 of 1985 titled as Harinder Pal Singh Vs. Union of India modifying the award of the District Judge to the extent that the claimants of all the five villages were held entitled to compensation @ `40,000/- per acre irrespective of the nature of land. They were also held entitled to statutory interest and in sofar as the land owners/claimants of villages Kathania and Wadala Bhitewad are concerned, they were also held entitled to 12% per annum on the market value assessed, namely, `40,000/- per acre from the date of notification MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -3- issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 22.7.1977 and 5.5.1978 to the date of Awards of the Collector i.e. 20.5.1982 and 22.6.1983 respectively.
The petitioners also challenged the aforesaid order by way of Appeals in the Supreme Court bearing Civil Appeals Nos.3343 to 3554 titled as Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, which were dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2005, reiterating that as far as benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act are concerned, the same would be confined to the land comprised in villages Kathania and Wadala Bhitewad only where the Collector made his award after 30.4.1982.
The land owners filed the executions after the market value was finally determined @ `40,000/- per acre. The principal amount was already disbursed but applications were filed by the decree holders, seeking a direction to the judgment debtor/petitioner to pay the interest on the whole enhanced amount including 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation. This application was contested by the petitioner denying the claim set up by the decree holder but vide its impugned order dated 21.12.2013, the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay the amount of statutory interest on solatium and 12% on market value. It may be added here that there is no dispute that the entire amount of compensation has been paid by the petitioner to the land owners except the one, namely, interest on solatium and additional market value as directed by the Court below.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that interest is neither payable on solatium nor on the additional amount. She has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -4- Amarjit Singh and another (2011) 4 SCC 734. She has also submitted that the respondents cannot claim interest on solatium solely on the basis of judgment rendered in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 while referring to another judgment of Supreme Court in Chhanga Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another (2012) 5 SCC 763.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has argued that the claimants are entitled to interest on the solatium and additional amount. She has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 SCC 432 and Narain Das Jain (since deceased) by LRs Vs. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (1991) 4 SCC 212.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
In order to search the answer to the question involved in this case, it would be relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Act, which reads as under:
"Matters to be considered in determining compensation- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration-
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under Section 4, sub section (1)]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -5-
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason or severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. [1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation - In computing the period referred to in this sub section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2)In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -6-
Section 23((1) deals with the determination of the amount of compensation of the acquired land and also lays down the factors to be taken into consideration at the time of its assessment. Section 23(1-A) deals with the additional amount to be paid in addition to the market value of the land in every case @ 12% per annum from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(i) to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Order 23(2) is also in addition to the market value of the land which is to be paid in every case of a sum of 30 per centum on such market value.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Amarjit Singh and another (supra) has dealt with the question as to whether additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is payable only on market value determined under first factor of Section 23(1) and not on solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act.
After a thorough discussion, the Apex Court has held that the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are payable both only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on any other amount. It was further held that solatium is neither payable under Section 23(2) on the additional amount nor is additional amount under Section 23(1-A) payable on solatium. Solatium and additional amount are also not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded under the second to sixth factors as enumerated in Section 23(1) of the Act. It was thus, held that :
MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -7-
(a) Compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act comprising the market value of the land referred to as the first factor and any damages/expenses referred to as the second to sixth factors under the said sub section
(b) Solatium at 30% on the market value determined as the first factor under Section 23(1) of the Act.
(c) Additional amount at 12% per annum of the market value of the land referred to as the first factor under Section 23(1) of the Act, for the period specified in Section 23(2).
(d) Interest on the aggregate of (a) (b) and (c) above for the period between the date of taking possession to the date of payment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period.
The Court rejected the argument of the respondent that the additional amount is also payable on the solatium.
In the case of Chhanga Singh and others (supra), the sole question decided by the Supreme Court was as to whether the claimants were entitled to interest over the amount of solatium and additional amount granted to them? In the said case while relying upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 it was held that payment of interest has to be made on solatium. As per the law laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) while referring to Section 54 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"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 MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -8- Sunder, the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though 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 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 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 execution and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question."
The ratio laid down in the aforesaid paragraph is that decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in the execution even though it is not specifically granted by the decree but if the claim for interest on solatium had been made and same has been negatived either MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -9- expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment and decree of the Reference Court or of the Appellate Court, the Execution Court will have to necessarily reject the claim for interest on solatium which has been based upon the judgment of Sunder Singh's case (supra) on the ground that execution Court cannot go beyond the decree but if the award of the Reference Court or by the Appellate Court do not refer to the question of interest on solatium and in case where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or by 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 deposited in execution. It was also clarified that interest on solatium could be claimed only during the pendency of the execution and not in the closed execution and the Executing Court could only allow its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder Singh's case (supra) i.e. 19.9.2001 and not from any date prior thereto. It was further clarified that this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder.
In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot (supra), the Court was dealing with an issue of interest on solatium and additional market value. In paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment, it has been held that this aspect has been considered and answered by the Constitution Bench in Sunder Singh's case (supra) and it was held that it is clear that the claimant, entitled to the compensation awarded, would also be MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -10- entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. It also held that in the case of Gurpreet Singh 's (supra,) the Constitution Bench had held that the claimant would be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value or of the award of the Reference Court or that of the Appellate court if it do not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium and additional market value or where such claim had not been rejected either expressly or impliedly. The relevant portion of the judgment is, thus, reproduced as under:
"The other grievance of the appellants is that interest on solatium and additional market value was not granted.
This aspect has been considered and answered by the Constitution Bench in Sunder Vs. Union of India while considering various decisions of the High Courts and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in State of Haryana Vs. Kailashwati this Court held that the interest awardable under Section 28 would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. In view of the same, it is clear that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
The above position has been further clarified by a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India. Based on the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Sunder, the present Constitution Bench held that the claimants would be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value if the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium and additional market value or where the claim had not been rejected either expressly or MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4345 of 2014 (O&M) -11- impliedly.
In view of the same, we hold that the appellants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value as held in the above referred two Constitution Bench judgments."
Thus, in view of the decision in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot (supra), the issue is no more res integra wherein it has been held that claimant would be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value, if the award of the reference court/or appellate court does not refer to the question of interest on solatium or additional market value or where claim was not expressly or impliedly rejected.
In the present case also, neither in the award of the reference Court, in that of the order of the Division Bench or of the Apex Court, the question of interest on solatium and additional market value was raised nor it was expressly or impliedly rejected.
Thus, in view thereof, there is no error in the impugned order of the Court below which requires interference by this Court.
Consequently, all the revision petitions are found to be without any merit and are dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) 25.11.2014 Judge Meenu MEENU KUMARI 2014.12.02 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh