Chimanlal Kuberdas Modi (D) by Lrs. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corp. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 20.02.2003 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 1148 of 2002]
With
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 20.02.2003 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 1148 of 2002]
Petitioner: Chimanlal Kuberdas Modi (D) by Lrs.
Respondent: Gujarat Industrial Development Corp. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 20.02.2003 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 1148 of 2002]
With
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 20.02.2003 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 1148 of 2002]
Judges: Dr. Mukundakam Sharma & Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 22, 2010
Appearances:
Appearances
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Mohit Paul, Mr. Anip Sachthey, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Mohit Paul, Mr. Anip Sachthey, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 34 – Interest on solatium – Possession taken on date of Award on 22.09.1986 – Reference Court determined market value at Rs. 30/- per sq.mtr. – Meanwhile some compensation paid – Solatium and increase of compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. – In execution, part payment made – Interest @ 9% p.a. for first year and 15% thereafter claimed – Ratio in Sunder’s case followed. Held that interest is payable on market value which includes solatium, even if there is no mention of solatium and mention is of compensation only. Sunder’s and Gurpreet Singh’s cases held applicable.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 34 – Interest on solatium – Possession taken on date of Award on 22.09.1986 – Reference Court determined market value at Rs. 30/- per sq.mtr. – Meanwhile some compensation paid – Solatium and increase of compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. – In execution, part payment made – Interest @ 9% p.a. for first year and 15% thereafter claimed – Ratio in Sunder’s case followed. Held that interest is payable on market value which includes solatium, even if there is no mention of solatium and mention is of compensation only. Sunder’s and Gurpreet Singh’s cases held applicable.
Held:
The claimants were also held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% and thereafter at 15% per annum on the entire amount payable. In the decree, it was also mentioned that the claimants would be entitled to get compensation as stated in the schedule attached therein. The schedule is attached with the decree. A bare perusal of the same indicates that in addition to the amount shown as compensation towards market value, solatium at the rate of 30% and increase of compensation at the rate of 12% per annum are also shown in the said schedule. The amount awarded in terms of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is shown to be included in the decree is, for reasons unclear, not indicated in the said schedule, but is specifically mentioned in the decree itself. Since a direction is made for payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter at 15% per annum in the decree, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the interest on market value, which also includes solatium and for that purpose the decisions in the case of Sunder (JT 2001 (8) SC 130) and Gurpreet Singh (supra) would become relevant. (Para 13)
The execution court cannot examine the reasons so as to go behind the decree but if in the Award passed, the Reference Court makes a specific reference to payment of interest but without any such reference to the payment of interest on solatium and merely payment of interest on compensation is granted, then it would be open to the executing court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) and declare that the compensation awarded includes solatium, and consequently, interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. That being the legal position as prevailing today, we cannot ignore the observations made in paragraph 54 of the aforesaid judgment in Gurpreet Singh (supra) and we order accordingly that compensation awarded includes solatium and therefore interest on the said amount shall be paid by the respondent in the pending execution. (Para 16)
Cases Reffered:
1. Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 457] (held applicable) (Para 1)
2. Sunder v. Union of India [JT 2001 (8) SC 130] (held applicable) (Para 1)
2. Sunder v. Union of India [JT 2001 (8) SC 130] (held applicable) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. The only issue which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether or not the appellant would be entitled to payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the solatium on the compensation paid in terms of the decision of the case in Sunder v. Union of India reported in [JT 2001 (8) SC 130] and further explained in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in [2006 (8) SCC 457].
2. The land belonging to the appellant was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 and
6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A notification was issued on 4.10.1973 for the beneficiary, namely, Respondent No. 1 under Section 4 of the Act. Thereafter another notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the competent authority on 4.11.1976. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in the land acquisition case wherein he determined the market value of the land at Rs. 1.28 per sq. metre. Possession of the land was also taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on the date of the passing of the Award. Pursuant to the aforesaid Award, the appellant was paid an amount of Rs. 73,191.09.
3. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 22.9.1986, determining the market value of the land at Rs. 1.28 per sq. metre, the appellant filed two references under Section 18 of the Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference before the Reference Court, the respondent paid a further sum of Rs. 1,18,557.08 towards the balance compensation for the land.
4. By a judgment and order dated 26.2.1999, the Reference Court disposed of the case, determining the market value of the land at Rs. 30 per sq. meter. While disposing of the said case, the following decree was passed by the Reference Court.
1. The reference cases are hereby partly allowed and the Respondents are hereby ordered to pay Rs. 28.72 Ps. over and above Rs. 1.28 Ps. Per Sq. Mtr. already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired lands.
2. The claimants be also paid the solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum till one year after the possession of the acquired lands was taken by the Government, and if the amount is not paid within one year, the claimants is entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the entire amount is deposited.
3. The claimants are also entitled to get increase of 12% from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 i.e. dated November 15, 1973 to the date of award i.e. September 22, 1986, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as provided under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
*************
1. The only issue which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether or not the appellant would be entitled to payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the solatium on the compensation paid in terms of the decision of the case in Sunder v. Union of India reported in [JT 2001 (8) SC 130] and further explained in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in [2006 (8) SCC 457].
2. The land belonging to the appellant was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 and
6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A notification was issued on 4.10.1973 for the beneficiary, namely, Respondent No. 1 under Section 4 of the Act. Thereafter another notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the competent authority on 4.11.1976. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in the land acquisition case wherein he determined the market value of the land at Rs. 1.28 per sq. metre. Possession of the land was also taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on the date of the passing of the Award. Pursuant to the aforesaid Award, the appellant was paid an amount of Rs. 73,191.09.
3. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 22.9.1986, determining the market value of the land at Rs. 1.28 per sq. metre, the appellant filed two references under Section 18 of the Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference before the Reference Court, the respondent paid a further sum of Rs. 1,18,557.08 towards the balance compensation for the land.
4. By a judgment and order dated 26.2.1999, the Reference Court disposed of the case, determining the market value of the land at Rs. 30 per sq. meter. While disposing of the said case, the following decree was passed by the Reference Court.
1. The reference cases are hereby partly allowed and the Respondents are hereby ordered to pay Rs. 28.72 Ps. over and above Rs. 1.28 Ps. Per Sq. Mtr. already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired lands.
2. The claimants be also paid the solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum till one year after the possession of the acquired lands was taken by the Government, and if the amount is not paid within one year, the claimants is entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till the entire amount is deposited.
3. The claimants are also entitled to get increase of 12% from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 i.e. dated November 15, 1973 to the date of award i.e. September 22, 1986, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as provided under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
*************
