9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisition for the Defence and in respect of which an Award was passed on 30-05-1995. 2. To appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to set out few facts which according to us, are necessary to be cited. The subject lands were occupied by the Defence authorities from 1942 onwards for defence purposes and were used as such, during the course of Second World War. Upon persistent request of the petitioners, an Award came to be ultimately passed on 30-05-1995. However, in spite of the passing of the said Award and despite protracted correspondence between the parties, the compensation was not paid to the petitioners and ultimately, a notice came to be issued to the petitioners that the authorities intended to withdraw from acquisition. The said notice came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of the above writ petition, which was finally heard and disposed of by us by Judgment and Order dated 17-06-2009. In the context of the issue raised in the above Notice of Motion, it would be relevant to extract the operative part of the said judgment, which reads as under : Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this petition will have to be allowed and is accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the present issue is concerned, Para Nos.26 and 27 of the said report are material and are reproduced herein under : 26. We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S.Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Harayana High Court in State of Harayana V/s. Kailashwati (SCC p 119 para 10). Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act, forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value along and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well. 27. In our view, the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to apply the ration 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 claim 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 (19-09-2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decreeholder. 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. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter, drew our attention to an unreported decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4988-5047 of 2010 and companion Civil Appeals, in the matter of Land Acquisition Officer Asstt. Commnr Anr., V/s. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and Ors. By the said decision, the Apex Court has in a manner explained the Constitution Bench Judgment in Gurpreet Singh s case and has considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sation and solatium. In such a situation, the landowner/claimant would be bound to go back to the execution court for realization of the additional amounts in terms of the modified decree. In such cases, the execution proceedings cannot be deemed to be closed and neither was it the intent of the observations in paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh. Coming now to the stipulation that any interest on solatium can only be granted for the period subsequent to September, 19, 2001, the date of the decision in Sunder, it is evident that this again, is a limitaiton on the power of the execution Court. The direction is actually referable to those cases in which the award of the reference court or the appellate court being silent, it is left open to the execution court to give direction for the deposit of interest on solatium. In such cases, the reference court can ask for interest only for the period subsequent to September 19, 2001. The direction in no way circumscribes the power of the Court dealing with the main proceeding relating to enhancement of the compensation. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The appeal being the continuation of the original proceedings, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained from the petitioners in the year 1942 and though, an Award was passed on 30-05-1995, the compensation was not paid to the petitioners and in fact, the authorities intended to withdraw from acquisition which resulted in the petitioners filing the above petition, which was disposed of by our judgment and order dated 17-06-2009 and it was ordered that the respondents could not withdraw from acquisition and that the petitioners would be entitled to payment of compensation, as also interest in terms of Statute. It cannot be gainsaid that the solatium is a part of the compensation offered to the deprived land holder and if interest is payable on account of the eventualities contemplated under Section 34 of the said Act, then obviously the deprived land holder would be entitled to the same. It is infact, the statutory duty of the Collector under the said Act, to compute and pay compensation in terms of the said Act and failure to compute and pay the statutory compensation/allowance, in our view, would amount to a failure of duty on his part. 10. In the instant case, it is required to be noted that the petitioners have been paid compensation in terms of the Award dated 30-05-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been deprived of compensation for almost a period of more than 15 years. The fact that the petitioner No.1 is 86 years old, also cannot be lost sight of. It is also not a case where the petitioners have any grievance or are claiming any enhancement in the market value, as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. This is a case where the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to discharge his statutory duty to the extent of determining the interest under Section 34 that would be payable to the petitioners, namely whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest on the solatium which has been paid to them. We are of the view that this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction, can obviously intervene in a case where the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer has failed to carry out his statutory duty. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the petitioner s entitlement to interest on solatium and it would be for the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the petitioners would be so entitled and if entitled, to quantify the said amount. The submission of the learned counsel Mr.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
