State of Haryana vs Gian Chand

G.C. Garg, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated December 22, 1990 passed by learned District Judge, Ambala in Execution Application No. 126/10 of 1989.

In order to understand the controversy raised in this revision, it is necessary to notice few facts.

Land of the claimants of this case and others was acquited by the State of Haryana On a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ( for short ''the Act''), learned District Judge came to the conclusion [hat the claimants were entitled to compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard in addition to solatium at the rate of 30% and all other benefits including those envisaged u/s 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. It seems that the claim of the landowners was satisfied. They, however, on a later date moved various applications claiming more amounts. The respondent herein is one of such claimants. The respondent had also moved an execution application as noticed above for the recovery of the balance amount of enhanced compensation. Details of the claim were not furnished by the claimants. However, on the direction of the court, amount of claim was disclosed which according to the claimants was required to be paid by the State of Haryana in the execution proceedings. The claim made was to a sum of Rs. 1,16,147.42 paise. The judgment-debtor, State of Haryana filed its reply to the statement of account tiled by the landowners. A specific plea was taken that interest at the rate of 12% is payable on the market value of the land.

In the aforesaid situation, a question arose before the executing court whether 12% interest is payable on the amount after adding 30% solatium to the market value. Learned District Judge after relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati and Ors. (1980) 82 PLR 122 came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to interest at 12% on the amount of solatium as well. The other point that arose for consideration before the learned District Judge was, whether the claimants are entitled to adjust partial payment made by the State first towards the amount of costs and interest etc. and balance towards the principal. This question was also answered by the learned District Judge in favour of the claimants in view of the judgment of this court in Tirlochan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, . Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Haryana has filed the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

As regards the adjustment of amount first towards the costs and interest and thereafter towards the principal, the matter now stands concluded by a Division Bench of this Court in Davinder Nath Katariya Vs. Haryana State, . The executing Court will therefore, calculate the amount in terms of the judgment in Devinder Nath Katuriya''s case (supra). The other claim of the claimants regarding interest at the rate 12% both on the market value as also on the amount of solatium is apparently a claim u/s 23(1A) of the Act. Learned District Judge, in my view, fell into error in concluding that the amount of 12% is payable both on the market value as also on the solatium. Section 23(1A) of the Act in terms provides that in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per certain per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification u/s 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. Section 28 of the Act provides payment of interest at the rate specified therein on the amount of compensation. Thus, there is a distinction between market value and the amount of compensation. The market value means the value of the land including super-structure as is actually determined by the Collector/Court, and the compensation as appearing in Section 28 of the Act, means the market value plus solatium payable under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. Thus, the amount at the rate of 12% is payable on the amount of market value as determined by the Collector/Court in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 and this market value does not include in its ambit the solatium payable to the landowners under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. The amount payable under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 is an amount in the nature of interest and is not interest as envisaged in Section 28 of the Act. Thus, the amount of 12% payable to the landowners in terms of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 is payable only on the market value of the land and on account of matters as enumerated in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 and not on the solatium payable on the market value under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. Reliance placed by learned District Judge on Smt. Kasilashwati''s case (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where the point in question was whether interest in terms of Section 28 was payable on the market value and as also on solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act. It was in that situation held that interest u/s 28 was payable, both on the market value of the land as also on the amount of solatium. It was not a case u/s 23(1A) of the Act. In fact this provision did not exist in the Land Acquisition Act at that time. To me, as already stated the provisions are absolutely clear to mean that the amount payable under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act is not interest though it is in the nature of interest and this amount is not payable on the solatium that may be payable to the landowners u/s 23(2) of the Act.

For what has been observed above, this revision is disposed of. Learned District Judge shall now dispose of the execution application in the light of the above observations and in accordance with law. No costs.