Union of India Vs. Hira Lal and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 11740 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8321 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.92 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R.P. No. 3784 of 1991)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8321 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.92 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R.P. No. 3784 of 1991)
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: Hira Lal and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 11740 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8321 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.92 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R.P. No. 3784 of 1991)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8321 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.92 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R.P. No. 3784 of 1991)
Judges: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & K.S. PARIPOORNAN,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 06, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. K. Amershwari, Senior Advocate, Mr. Hemant Sharma, Mr. C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. Anil Katiyar,, Advocates with her for the Appellant.
Dr. Shanker Ghosh, Senior Advocate and Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate with him for the Respondent Nos. 1-4.
Head Note:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
As amended in 1984- Solatium and Interest awarded- Held beyond the competence of District Judge- Solatium and interest deleted- But compensation awarded affirmed along with interest at 12% from the date of award being made rule of Court till date of payment- Concession made by Govt. Pleader on a question of law is not binding on the appellant- Such concession prejudicial to interest of his client and was untenable in law -High Court not justified in dismissing Revision Petition- Appeal allowed.
As amended in 1984- Solatium and Interest awarded- Held beyond the competence of District Judge- Solatium and interest deleted- But compensation awarded affirmed along with interest at 12% from the date of award being made rule of Court till date of payment- Concession made by Govt. Pleader on a question of law is not binding on the appellant- Such concession prejudicial to interest of his client and was untenable in law -High Court not justified in dismissing Revision Petition- Appeal allowed.
Held:
We must mention that the concession made by the Government Advocate before the Learned District Judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as Amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. Being a concession on a question of law, it cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. It is surprising how the Government Advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interests of the parties he was representing. We are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the Revision Petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. We are of the opinion that the learned District Judge who heard the appeal filed by the State and the cross-objections filed by the respondents was not competent to award solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act). Accordingly, we delete the award of solatium and also award of interest at the rate and for the periods mentioned in the order of the learned District Judge. We, however, affirm the quantum of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator at Rs.3.61 lacs (excluding the amount of Rs.72037.85 paise which has already been paid to the respondents in the year 1982). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we direct that the said amount of Rs.3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent simple from the date of the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, i.e., the date on which the learned Subordinate Judge made the award a rule of the Court. The said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.
4. We must mention that the concession made by the Government Advocate before the Learned District Judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as Amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. Being a concession on a question of law, it cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. It is surprising how the Government Advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interests of the parties he was representing. We are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the Revision Petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. We are of the opinion that the learned District Judge who heard the appeal filed by the State and the cross-objections filed by the respondents was not competent to award solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act). Accordingly, we delete the award of solatium and also award of interest at the rate and for the periods mentioned in the order of the learned District Judge. We, however, affirm the quantum of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator at Rs.3.61 lacs (excluding the amount of Rs.72037.85 paise which has already been paid to the respondents in the year 1982). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we direct that the said amount of Rs.3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent simple from the date of the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, i.e., the date on which the learned Subordinate Judge made the award a rule of the Court. The said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.
4. We must mention that the concession made by the Government Advocate before the Learned District Judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as Amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. Being a concession on a question of law, it cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. It is surprising how the Government Advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interests of the parties he was representing. We are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the Revision Petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs.
