AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bankim N. Mehta, J.—The Petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and have prayed to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that they are entitled for interest on additional amount and solatium on additional amount deposited under Sections 23, 23(1A) and 23(2) as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India reported in 2001 (3) GLH 446. The Petitioners have also made prayer to direct the Respondents to deposit the amount of interest calculated by them at Annexure C and they may be permitted to withdraw the same on deposit.
The Petitioners are the owners of the land situated at village Khakharia, Tal: Savli, Dist: Vadodara, more particularly, described in para 2 of the petition. The lands were required for the purpose of construction of main canal of Narmada Project, therefore, two notifications u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and thereafter, notifications u/s 6(1) of the Act were published. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the evidence, offered compensation to the Petitioners and other land owners and accordingly, awards were passed. The Petitioners and other land owners preferred land references u/s 18 of the Act for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Reference Court, Vadodara by common award dated 30.11.2000 enhanced the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, but did not grant any interest on solatium as well as on the price escalation. The Respondents preferred first appeals, but the same came to be dismissed and thereby, the finding of the Reference Court was confirmed. The Respondents were directed to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks. The Petitioners did not challenge the award nor the finding of Reference Court with regard to interest over solatium as well as on the price escalation nor filed any cross objection in the first appeals preferred by the Respondents. Therefore, the award passed by the Reference Court had become final. The Petitioners filed execution proceedings to enforce the award. The Respondents deposited the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Reference Court, on 3.5.2002 in the Execution Court. According to the Petitioners, they are entitled for interest on market value u/s 23, interest on solatium u/s 23(2) and also interest on the additional amount u/s 23(1A) of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder (supra), but such amounts were not deposited by the Respondents in the pending proceedings. Therefore, the Petitioners preferred application before Execution Court claiming such amounts. The execution Court after considering the facts and evidence of the case, dismissed the application. Therefore, present petition is filed claiming the reliefs mentioned herein above.
Smt. Chandrika P. Baranda, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project, Unit No. 1, Vadodara filed affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and contended that the Petitioners have approached the Court at belated stage with a view to take advantage of the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Sunder''s case (supra), which was pronounced much later than the demand made by the Petitioners at the time of execution proceedings. There is no finding of the Reference Court that the Petitioners are entitled to interest on solatium and on the amount of price escalation. The Petitioners filed execution proceedings to execute the award passed by the Reference Court and by filing application on 24.7.2002 claimed interest on solatium as well as on escalation price relying upon the decision of Sunder (supra) decided on 19.9.2001. The Petitioners filed execution proceedings on 23.2.2001 and claimed Rs. 92,59,030/- and the said amount was deposited on 3.5.2002. The amount deposited in the Court was calculated as per the decree drawn by the Court. Therefore, the petition is required to be rejected.
We have heard learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the Petitioners and learned AGP Ms. Monali Bhatt at length and in great detail. We have also perused the impugned judgment and documents annexed with the petition.
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submitted that in view of the decision of Sunder''s case (supra), the Petitioners were entitled for amount of interest as the execution proceedings were pending. He also submitted that at the time of deciding the reference, Sunder''s case (supra) was pending before Hon''ble Supreme Court and therefore, the Reference Court while passing award could not award such amounts in the operative part of the order, but that would not dis-entitle the Petitioners from claiming such amount of interest and therefore, the Execution Court committed error in passing the impugned order.
Learned AGP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the Petitioners have accepted the award passed by the Reference Court, wherein claim of interest on additional amount payable u/s 23(1A) of the Act and on the solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act have been specifically negatived and therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled for such amount of interest as the Execution Court cannot go behind the decree. She also submitted that in view of decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), the Petitioners are not entitled for the amount of interest, as the Reference Court has expressly negatived the claim of interest. She also submitted that this Court has, in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Bhuliben Lala Ratanji and another rendered in SCA No. 5341/2010 and allied matters, following the decision of Gurpreet Singh (supra) refused to pay interest on such amounts as the Reference Court did not grant such amount and therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
Earlier, the petition was dismissed for default. Therefore, the Petitioners filed MCA No. 2072 of 2010 to restore the petition to its original file. After hearing the parties, the petition was restored to file and with the consent of the learned advocates for the Petitioners and learned AGP, this petition was taken up for final hearing.
Short controversy involved in the petition is whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim interest in view of decision of Sunder''s case (supra). It is not in dispute that the Petitioners are owners of lands, which were acquired by the Respondents. The amount of compensation was determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and award was passed. The Petitioners did not accept the award and made application u/s 18 of the Act to the Collector to refer the matter for determination of the Court. The Reference Court, after considering the evidence, passed an award and enhanced the compensation. The Respondents preferred appeals before High Court but the appeals came to be dismissed and the award passed by the Reference Court was confirmed. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioners did not prefer any appeal or filed cross objections in respect of award passed by the reference Court. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled only for the amount awarded by the Reference Court. As the Respondents did not deposit the amount as directed by the Reference Court, the Petitioners filed execution proceedings to enforce the award and hence, the Respondents deposited the amount as per the award passed by the Reference Court in the Execution Court. During pendency of the execution proceedings, Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Sunder''s case (supra) held that interest is payable on aggregate amount of compensation including solatium. Therefore, relying upon the Sunder''s case (surpa), the Petitioners filed application before Execution Court and claimed amount of interest on compensation paid u/s 23, 23(2) and 23(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the issue, which is required to be decided is whether in view of the decision of Sunder''s case (supra), the Petitioners are entitled for interest on the additional amount of compensation and solatium also in the pending execution proceedings? This issue has been dealt with by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision of Gurpreet Singh (supra). In the said decision, it is held that:
"54. 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 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 based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court cannot go 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 expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or 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 directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) 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."
In view of above, it is clear that interest on solatium can only be awarded in execution if Reference Court or appellate Court has not negatived the same expressly or by implication. In the instant case, execution proceedings were pending when the claim of interest was made, but it appears from the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the claim of interest was negatived by the Reference Court. The Reference Court in the operative part of the judgment granting reliefs also recorded as under:
"The claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the award of additional amount payable u/s 23(1A) of the Act and on the solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act and they shall not be entitled for solatium on the additional amount u/s 23(1A) of the Act."
As observed earlier, the appeals have been dismissed, thereby such finding has attained finality. Therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled for the amount of interest claimed in the application on the basis of decision of Sunder''s case (supra) and the Execution Court was justified in rejecting the claim of interest.
Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has relied upon decision of Patel Joitaram Kalidas and Others Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, in support of his contention. It appears from the observations made in the said decision that Hon''ble Supreme Court considering the peculiar facts of the case, as a special case, in the interest of justice, allowed the interest. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said decision is not applicable.
This Court in the decision of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra) following the decision of Gurpreet Singh (supra), held that when Reference Court has negatived the claim of interest on solatium and on the amount of 12% on market value by implication, the original claimants/land owners cannot claim such amount relying upon Sunder''s case (supra). As observed earlier, the Reference Court has expressly negatived the claim of interest and therefore, the Execution Court was justified in rejecting the claim.
In view of above, the Petitioners have failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs.