State of Gujarat and Another vs Ranchhod Hirabhai

M.R. Shah, J.—As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Civil Revision Applications, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

All these Civil Revision Applications u/s 115 of the Code of CPC have been preferred by the petitioners - original opponents - State of Gujarat and another against the order dtd.23/4/2003 passed by the learned executing court i.e. learned Civil Jude (SD), Amreli in Special Execution Application Nos. 111/2001 to 124/2001 and 28/2001 to 44/2001, directing the State Government to pay to the original claimants interest on the total amount of compensation which includes solatium at the rate of 30% and the market price and price rise at the rate of 12%.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, respondents herein - original claimants made a Reference before the Reference Court being Land Reference Cases Nos. 65 to 75 of 1991 and other Land References, and the learned Reference Court partly allowed all the References awarding compensation considering the market value of the lands at Rs. 850 Are for irrigated land and Rs. 650 per Acre for non-irrigated land. The learned Reference Court also directed that for the new tenure land, 5% should be deducted from the awarded amount and to be credited to the Government as per law. That the learned Reference Court also ordered that the petitioners herein - original opponents shall also pay to the claimants interest at the rate of 9% from the date of taking possession or from the date of award of the Dy.Collector, whichever is earlier, for the first time and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation. The Reference Court also ordered the petitioners - original opponents - State of Gujarat and another to pay additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% according to the provisions of Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and also further directed the petitioners - original opponents - State of Gujarat and another to pay the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

That the said judgement and award passed by the Reference Court came to be confirmed by this Court.

That the State Government deposited the amount of compensation, however, did not pay interest on the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% and also on the amount of solatium and therefore, the respective claimants filed Special Execution Applications in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Amreli i.e. the executing court and the learned Executing Court has allowed the aforesaid Execution Applications directing the petitioners - original opponents to pay the remaining amount by way of interest on additional compensation at the rate of 12% and also on the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% and directed the petitioners herein to pay the amount as claimed by the original claimants as per the scheduled attached to the respective claim petitions.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court directing the State Government to pay balance amount by way of interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 12% as well as interest on the amount of solatium at the rate of 30%, the petitioners herein - original opponents - State of Gujarat and another have preferred present Civil Revision Applications u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Niraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein - State of Gujarat and another, has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court is beyond the judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court. It is further submitted that the learned Executing Court has materially erred in directing the petitioners herein to pay interest calculated on the total amount which includes solatium market price and price increase at the rate of 12%. It is submitted that the claimants are, as such, entitled to interest on the amount of market price only of the land acquired and not on the amount 12% additional compensation at the rate of 12% and on the amount of 30% solatium. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Applications.

All these Civil Revision Applications are opposed by Mr. P.V. Hathi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective opponents - original claimants. He has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of his prayer to dismiss the present Civil Revision Applications by submitting that the controversy raised in the present Civil Revision Applications is now not res integra in view of the said decisions;

the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India,

the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others,

the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Joitaram Kalidas and Others Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Another,

the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Maganbhi Chaturbhai and Another Vs. The Collector, Mehsana District,

the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ramji Govind and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) GLH 631; and

the unreported decision of the learned Single Judge dated 11/04/2002 in Civil Revision Application No. 1115/2001 and other allied Civil Revision Applications.

Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Civil Revision Applications.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

The only question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the respective respondents - original claimants, whose lands have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, are entitled to interest to be paid only on market price of the land or on the entire amount of compensation inclusive of 12% additional compensation and also interest on the amount of 30% solatium?

As such the controversy raised in the present Civil Revision application is now not res integra. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Maganbhai Chaturbhai and Anr. v. The Collector, Mehsana District (Supra), which is reported to have been confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, interest to be paid u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is on entire amount of compensation inclusive of amount by way of solatium. In the said decision, the Division Bench has observed and held as under;

Under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the liability of the Collector to pay the interest on the compensation awarded arises in case the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited in Court. The interest has to be awarded on the amount of such compensation and the term "such compensation" would obviously relate to the words "amount of compensation" referred to in Section 23. Again the words "the amount awarded with interest thereon" make it abundantly clear that what is required to be paid by way of compensation is not only the market value of the land but also the amount by way of solatium contemplated in Section 23(2). It is the combination of both that make the compensation to be awarded to the claimants in respect of the lands acquired and, therefore, the interest to be paid would be on the entire amount awarded though no doubt from the date when the possession was taken over till the amount is paid or deposited.

In the case of Sunder v. Union of India (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium also. Identical question whether the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ramji Govind and Ors. (Supra) and it is held by the learned Single Jude that interest u/s 23 is to be paid on compensation plus solatium amount and relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. (Supra) it is held that interest on compensation amount only is incorrect. Similar view has been expressed by the learned Single Judge in an unreported decision dated 11/04/2002 in Civil Revision Application No. 1115/2001 and other allied Civil Revision Applications.

Now so far as the contention on behalf of the applicant that the learned executing Court has gone beyond the judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court is concerned, it is to be noted that as such the learned Reference Court has awarded interest on additional compensation and as held by the Division Bench additional compensation includes the amount of solatium and, therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the learned executing Court has gone beyond the judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court. In the case of Patel Joitaram Kalidas and Others Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, it is held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering Section 23(1-A) & (2) of the Land Acquisition Act that the interest on amount payable by way of additional amount and solatium is automatic and does not involve any judicial discretion. It is held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said decision that the Court is bound to grant interest irrespective of whether the claim therefore has been made or not.

Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it cannot be said that the learned executing Court has committed any error in awarding interest on the amount of 30% solatium as well as on the additional compensation at the rate of 12% while considering the amount of interest to be paid on compensation.

In view of the above, there is no substance in any of the Revision Applications, which deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged in each of the Civil Revision Applications. Ad-interim-relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.