State of Punjab and Another vs Sohan Quadri

L.N. Mittal, J.—State of Punjab and Land Acquisition Collector have filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short-CPC) assailing order dated 18.04.1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala as Reference Court. Respondent Sohan Quadri-land owner filed reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short-the Act) claiming enhanced compensation for his acquired land. The Reference Court, vide Award dated 28.07.1984, decided the said reference and awarded compensation for the acquired land along with solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6% per annum.

Respondent filed application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC (in short-CPC) claiming enhanced solatium @ 30% and enhanced interest @ 9% per annum for one year and 15% per annum for the subsequent period, in view of Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984. Learned Reference Court, vide impugned order dated 18.04.1990, has allowed the said application of respondent-land owner and has granted solatium and interest at enhanced rates, as claimed by the land owner. Feeling aggrieved, State of Punjab and Land Acquisition Collector have filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file, whereas none has appeared for the respondent in spite of service and many adjournments.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that solatium and interest at enhanced rates could not have been allowed, on application filed under Sections 151 and 152 CPC. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Kartar Singh (D) Through L.Rs.,

There is considerable merit in the aforesaid contention of counsel for the petitioners. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been categorically laid down that after decision of the case by Reference Court or by High Court, solatium and interest at enhanced rates could not be allowed by resorting to Sections 151 and 152 CPC. Consequently, in the instant case, the Reference Court could not have granted interest and solatium at enhanced rates, on application moved by the respondent-land owner under Sections 151 and 152 CPC. Impugned order of the Reference Court is, therefore, illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.04.1990 passed by the Reference Court is set aside and application filed by respondent-land owner under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for solatium and interest at enhanced rates stands dismissed.