The Union of India VsRanu Marak

S. Talapatra, J.—Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Union of India. None appears for the respondent.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-the Union of India has challenged the order dated 25.03.2013 of the execution court in Ex(M) No. 22/2003, asking them to pay the interest on solatium in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short, ''L.A. Act''), which provides as under:

"34. Payment of interest.-When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:

Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry."

According to the petitioner-the Union of India, since no order has been passed expressly for payment of the interest on solatium, by the Land Acquisition Judge at the time of passing the award in view of the decision of the apex court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), , the execution court cannot add interest with the decretal amount. In Gurpreet Singh, it has been held that:

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: (2001) 7 SCC 211, 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.

[Emphasis added]

From a close reading of Gurpreet Singh, it would be apparent that certain clarification has been supplied in respect of the decision as laid down in Sunder Vs. Union of India (UOI) , whereby a Constitution Bench has overruled Prem Nath Kapur and Another Vs. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. and Others, which laid the law that the solatium would carry no interest.

In Sunder, it has been held in no uncertain terms that when compensation is regarded as a statutory obligation, the word ''compensation'' cannot connote or be restricted to its ordinary meaning, rather such meaning would detract the courts in fathoming its real import. In Sunder, it has been held that all the three heads specified in the three sub-sections in Section 23 are the sums to be awarded by the reference court. Hence the word ''award'' cannot be treated as the award after delinking the amount awarded under Sub-section (1A) or Sub-section (2) of Section 23. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for solatium at 30% on the market value of the acquired land or the properties in reference to the compulsory acquisition. It has been held in Sunder by dispelling ambiguities that compensation constitutes solatium also. The Constitution Bench of the apex court, in Sunder, has held as under:

The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further dear. The proviso says that "if such compensation" is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount u/s 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest u/s 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted.

[Emphasis added]

There cannot be any amount of doubt that in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act, the solatium would carry interest. Gurpreet Singh has addressed certain specific eventualities, such as, whether the interest on the solatium can be claimed in the execution proceeding. Even though the execution court cannot go beyond the decree, but unless such claim is negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment and award of the reference court or by the appellate court, the execution court also can apply the ratio of Sunder and can say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and, in such an event the interest on that amount could be directed to be deposited or paid in execution. But, by virtue of explanation no person would be entitled to claim interest on solatium when the execution proceedings have been closed.

In the present case, the petitioner has nowhere stated that by the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, the claim of interest on the solatium has been negatived, rather it has been provided that on the market value, 30% shall be the solatium. It has been further ordered that the land-losers will get interest at various rates as provided by Section 34 of the L.A. Act. The direction for depositing the sum on account of interest on the solatium, therefore, cannot be faulted with.

In the result, this petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.