9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned dispute relates to land in Survey Nos. 111/1 and 111/2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter, LAC ) awarded compensation at ₹ 45/- per sq. meter. 3. Aggrieved, landowners-appellants 1 to 3 and one Ana Conceicao Antonieta Santimano filed reference petitions against the order of the LAC under Section 18 of the Act. The District Judge, South Goa, passed an award dated 19.08.1992, wherein the rate of ₹ 45/- per sq. meter given by the LAC was upheld. Additionally, they were held entitled to severance charges @ 20% p.a. of ₹ 45/- per sq. meter in respect of the nonacquired portion of 37,731 sq. meters. They were also granted compensation in respect of a boundary wall amounting to ₹ 31,720/-, and other stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents thus deposited the uncollected cheques in their Revenue Deposit by way of challan and utilized the same. 7. The appellants filed an execution application (No. 3/98) for the recovery of the balance amount along with interest accrued thereon. In the said execution application, the appellants raised a dispute as to apportionment of compensation within the meaning of Section 31(2) of the Act, contending that Ana Conceicao Antonieta Santimano was entitled to ₹ 2,83,159.67/- and Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes was entitled to ₹ 2,83,159.67/- as per Survey No.111/1; and Ana Conceicao Antonieta Santimano was entitled to ₹ 1,57,026.20/- and Herbert Santimano Fernandes was entitled to ₹ 1,57,026.20/- as per Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: The decree holders have not contested the figures mentioned in the reply Exh. 20 dated 15.7.2000 filed by the judgment debtors, which show that an amount of ₹ 8,80,372/- was due and payable to them upto 31.3.1996. Decree holders nos. 1 and 2 would be therefore, entitled to receive further interest at the rate of 15% from 1.4.1996 to 8.4.1996 on the said sums of ₹ 2,06,436/- and ₹ 2,06,437/- respectively. Likewise, decree holder no. 1 would also be entitled to receive further interest at the rate of 15% on ₹ 60,000/- from 1.4.1996 to 7.1.2000 and decree holder no. 2 would also be entitled to receive further interest at the rate of 15% on ₹ 3,52,872/- from 1.4.1996 to 7.1.2000. Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount only in court and it cannot be contended that State was not entitled to pay the said amount directly to the claimants. 12. On the other hand, the counsel for the appellants urged that Sections 28 and 34 of the Act make it abundantly clear that the interest could be paid only in Court, otherwise liability on the State to pay interest would continue. As per Section 53 of the Act, the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC could not come in the way of the contention of the appellants in as much as the said provision was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and thus, the bar with regard to grant of interest as provided under Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC would not apply in the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly, the legal heirs of appellant 5 were brought on record. 16.We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the relevant provisions of the Act. 17. In the case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra), a three- Judge Bench of this Court considered the question as to when the liability of the State to pay interest ceases. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: 13. Thus we hold that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under section 23(1) continues to subsist until it is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into court under section 34 read with section 31. Equally, the liability to pay interest on the excess amount of compensation d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
