Meerut Development Authority, ... vs J.D. Singhal & Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 3721 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
								            Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 104 of 2007
 

 
Revisionist :- Meerut Development Authority, Meerut
 
Opposite Party :- J.D. Singhal & Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- B. Dayal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Goyal
 

 
Alongwith
 

 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 105 of 2007
 
Revisionist :- Meerut Development Authority, Meerut
 
Opposite Party :- A.P. Singhal & Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- B. Dayal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Goyal
 

 
                          
 

 
                                             *********
 

 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

Since similar controversy is involved in both the revisions, therefore, these revisions are being decided by this one and common judgment.

By means of the present revisions, the revisionist, Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'MDA') has challenged the order of the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut, dated 30th November, 2000, rejecting the Application no. 59-C, moved by the MDA in Execution Case No. 10 of 2001, Jugmandar Das Singhal and others vs. State of U.P and in Execution Case No. 9 of 2001, Anand Prakash Singhal and others v. State of U.P.

The brief facts, giving rise to the present case, are that Sri Jugmander Dass Singhal and Sri Anand Prakash Singhal were the owners of the plot no. 331/2-14-0, situated in Village Mukarabpur Palhera, Pargana Daurala, Tehsil Sardhana District Meerut, which was acquired by the State for Meerut Development Authority. The owners being not satisfied with the awards, passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, Meerut, have moved reference applications, on which the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector to the District Judge, Meerut and registered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 68 and 70 of 1989. These references were decided by the then Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut vide judgment dated 7.5.1990. The said references have been allowed in part and it has been held that the claimants are entitled to compensation for first belt at the rate of Rs.70/- per sq. yard and for the remaining land i.e. second belt at the rate of Rs.37.50 per sq. yard. Further, it has also been held that the claimants are entitled to additional amount of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section-4 of the L.A. Act i.e. 2.7.1980 till the date of possession, i.e., 9.7.1982; Solatium at the rate of 30%; interest @ 9% for one year from the date of possession i.e. 9.7.1982; and interest at the rate of 15% from second year till the date of payment on balance amount. The claimants have also been held entitled for compensation for an area 0-0-10 of plot no. 761 also if not already paid. The parties shall get and pay the costs of the reference according to their failure and success.

Being not satisfied with the aforesaid award, the MDA and the State Government filed the appeals followed by the cross appeals by the claimants before this Court. This Court vide order dated 12th January, 1995, decided both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved by the order of this Court, the owners preferred appeals before the Apex Court, which were registered as Appeal nos. 9043 and 9044 of 1995. These appeals have been decided alongwith other appeals relating to the other parties by the order dated 30th April, 1997. Relevant part of the judgment of the Apex Court, necessary for the present case, is being reproduced below:

"In respect of Mukarabpur Palheda, it is seen that the notification is dated July 12, 1980. In view of the fact that this land also is in very close proximity to the developed Meerut City and the lands also were possessed of potential value for building purposes as on the date of the notification, we think that approximate market value would be Rs.85/- per sq. yard. The claimants are entitled to solatium on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 30%. They are also entitled to interest in case the possession was delivered by them with effect from the date of taking possession for one year at and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the date of deposit in the Court. If possession was not so taken, no interest is payable. They are also entitled to additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) from the date of notification till date of passing of the award or delivery of the possession, which ever is earlier."

In accordance with the amended award passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Decree-Holders Sri J.D. Singhal and Sri A.P. Singhal and others moved the Execution Applications claiming amounts of Rs.1,20,25,078-00/= and Rs.3,77,8054-20/=, respectively, which included interest pendente lite of the proceedings calculated till the date of moving of the application for execution i.e. 30/9/2000. Decree-Holders further claimed interest till realization.

During the pendency of the execution applications, several objections have been raised by the Judgment-Debtor, which have been rejected by separate orders. Subsequently the decretal amount was attached and realized on 4/10/2006 and is in deposit in the Court.

Thereafter, the MDA filed an application being Application no. 59-C, alleging therein, that the amount awarded in excess, has been attached and got recovered. A calculation sheet has been filed, stating that amounts of Rs.1,16,28,105-81/= and Rs.3559518=52/= have been recovered in excess and the same be returned to them. The said applications have been opposed by the decreeholders, who also filed their calculation. As observed by the court below that both the parties, after comparing two calculations, have come to an agreement that now there remains no dispute between the parties over the area of the land acquired and the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.85/= per sq. yard and further the decreeholders are also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% as well as are entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 16th June, 1985 for one year and also are entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum onwards till the date of realisation of the compensation. Both the parties also agreed that the decreeholders are also entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') at the rate of 12% as compensation. Counsel for both the parties also agreed that the difference between the calculations made by the decreeholders and the judgment debtors is only in respect of the interest payable on the additional amount, under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.

In this view of the matter, the court below has observed that the dispute is confined to the interest claimed by the decreeholders on the additional amount, under Section 23(1)-A of the Act, which according to the judgment debtor-MDA is not payable. The court below, further, relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Sunder Vs. Union of India, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211, has held that the interest is also payable on the additional amount, under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The court below also observed that several objections raised by the judgment debtor have already been rejected by the separate order and further observed that in a number of cases, the objection, disputing the payment of interest on the additional amount has been raised by the MDA, has been rejected. The MDA has challenged the said order by way of Revision nos. 280, 311, 313 and 314 of 2002 wherein the learned counsel for the MDA has conceded that the calculations have to be made as per the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India (supra). The relevant portion of the order of this Court, dated 30.9.2004 in the aforesaid revisions have also been referred in the order, which are being referred, herein below, for the purposes of convenience.

"At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties urged that calculations should be as per the guidelines given in the case Sunder vs. Union of India (JT 2001(8) S.C. Page 310) and also in case of Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Vasantrao & others (AIR SCW Page 4095). Learned counsel for decree holder submitted that in view of the above fact M.D.A. is stopped from submitting otherwise and M.D.A. is bound to calculate as per guidelines laid down in case of Sunder vs. Union of India (supra). M.D.A. Is barred from submitting that law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in case of Sunder (supra) is not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel for the D.H further submitted that even if for the sake of argument, it is presumed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 30th April, 1997 is silent on this point, even then this Court is bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunder Versus Union of India (Supra) and the Decree Holders are entitled to get interest on the market value solatium and the additional amount as well. This view has again been confirmed in case of Nagpur Imrpovement Trust vs. Vasant Rao and others (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 957 whereby it has been held as follows:

"Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and it is held that the claimants are also entitled to interest on the amount payable to them under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act."

Heard Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the impugned order as well as documents available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the law on the point, namely, that the interest is payable on the additional amount, under Section 23(1A) of the Act, is now settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India (Supra) wherein it has been held that the interest is payable. The only dispute is that from which date it is payable. He submitted that in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC, 457, in paragraph -54, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has clarified that where in the order of the award, there is no reference of the payment of interest, the Execution court should permit the recovery of the interest from the date of the judgment as per the guidelines given in Sunder's case (supra) and not for any prior period. He further submitted that in the present case, the Apex Court in the appellate order, though has directed for payment of the interest on the amount of solatium, but has not directed the payment of the interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act, therefore, the Execution court can only direct the recovery of the interest on the additional amount from the date of the judgment in Sunder's case (supra) and not for any prior period. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Chiman Lal Kuberdas Modi v. Union of India, reported in JT 2010 (11) SC 317 wherein the Apex Court, on the fact that the reference court has not awarded the interest on the additional amount, under Section 23(1A) of the Act and the decision in Sunder's case (supra) came during the pendency of the execution, has held that the Execution Court was justified in permitting the recovery of the interest from the date of the judgment, that is, 19th September, 1996 and not for any prior period.

Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that:

(i) The Apex Court in the appellate order has specifically observed that the claimants are also entitled to the interest in case the possession was delivered by them with effect from the date of taking over the possession for one year at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the date of deposit is made in the court. This direction relates to both the solatium as well as to the additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act and not to the solatium only.

(ii) In the case of Sunder v. Union of India, the Apex Court has held that the decreeholders are also entitled for the interest on the additional amount at the rate of 9% per annum, under Section 23(1A) of the Act in case the possession was delivered by them with effect from the date of taking over the possession for one year at the rate of 9% and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of the deposit made in the court.

(iii) The State of U.P.-judgment debtor filed the objection before the Execution court in Execution Case No. 10 of 2001, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been rejected by the District Judge, Meerut vide order dated 22nd November, 2003 wherein the objection raised by the State of U.P. with regard to the area of the land acquired and further objection in respect of the calculation given by the decreeholders, in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to the interest on solatium as well as on the additional amount, have been rejected and the direction has been issued for the attachment and recovery of the amount to the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank. The entire decreetal amount claimed by the respondents as per the calculation has been attached and realised on 4th October, 2006 and deposited in the court. Thus, the recovery proceeding relating to the recovery stood honoured. (iv) Once the objection filed by the revisionist against the calculation of the amount given by the respondent has been rejected by the District Judge vide his order dated 22nd November, 2003, the same has become final inasmuch as it has not been challenged in any of the competent court, therefore, it is not open to the revisionist to raise any further objection and Application no. 59-C, raising objection, giving their own calculation, was wholly unjustified, not maintainable and barred by constructive res-judicata.

(v) In Gurpreet's case (supra), the Apex Court has considered the payment of interest only on the solatium. There is neither any direction nor any clarification with regard to the additional amount, under Section 23(1A) of the Act, therefore, this judgment is not applicable.

(vi) The decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet's case (supra) has held that if the award of the Reference court or that of Appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in case where the claim had been made and rejected either specifically or impliedly by the Reference court or by the Appellate court and merely interest on compensation has been awarded, then it would be open to the Execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder's case (supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event the interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. It has also been clarified 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. In the case in hand, the interest was claimed by the respondents on the additional amount right from the beginning. Neither the Reference Court nor the Appellate court has rejected such claim expressly or impliedly. Further, in the present case the recovery has already taken place after rejection of the objection, therefore, the question of review of the entitlement for the recovery does not arise.

I have considered rival submissions.

It will be useful to refer Sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Act.

Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.--(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration--

first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1);

secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;

thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;

fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and

sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.

(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

Explanation.---In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.

(2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

Section 28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.-- If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court:

Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of 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 such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.

Section 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.

It is undisputed fact that the claimants, all along claimed solatium and the additional amount, under Section 23(1A) of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer, in Land Acquisition Reference before the Additional District Judge, before the High Court and in Appeal before the Apex Court. Though the Land Acquisition Officer and the Additional District Judge in reference has not allowed the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act, but in Appeal, the Apex Court in its order dated 30th April, 1997 has specifically held that the claimants are entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12%, under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of the notification till the date of the passing of the award or delivery of the possession, whichever is earlier. Thus, it is a clear case where the additional amount, under Section 23(1A) of the Act has been awarded. Though the direction of the Apex Court that the claimants are also entitled to the interest, in case the possession was delivered by them, with effect from the date of taking the possession for one year at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the date of deposit in the court is after the direction for the entitlement of the solatium and prior to the direction for the payment of the additional amount at the rate of 12%, under Section 23 (1A), but in my opinion, the direction of the interest has to be read for both, the solatium as well as for the additional amount inasmuch as there is no specific denial of non-payment of the interest on the additional amount.

The Apex Court, in the case of Sunder v. Union of India (supra) has held that the additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act is the part of the compensation and, therefore, the interest is payable and as such the interest on the additional amount is payable by enforcement of law and no specific adjudication or direction is required, unless it is specifically refused by the competent court.

It would be appropriate to refer Paragraph-54 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurpreet's case (supra), which runs as follows:

"54- 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, the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution thought 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 of 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 reappropriation 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."

The reliance is placed on the last direction of the Apex Court in Gurpreet's case (supra), namely, that if the award of the Reference court or that of Appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in case where the claim had been made and rejected either specifically or impliedly by the Reference court or by the Appellate court and merely interest on compensation has been awarded, then it would be open to the Execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder's case (supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event the interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. It has also been clarified 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. In my view, the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court does not apply in the facts of the present case for the reason that such direction of the Apex Court in Gurpreet's case (supra) was only for interest on the solatium and not on the additional amount; in the case of the respondents, the Apex court, has specifically, in its order dated 30th April, 1997, directed for the payment of the interest, which was both for the solatium and the additional amount; the claim of the interest has not been rejected either expressly or impliedly; the execution proceeding was pending where the details of interest was submitted to which objection was raised by the revisionist, which has been specifically rejected by the District Judge by the order dated 22nd November, 2003, which has not been challenged by the revisionist; the recovery has already been executed. In the other cases, that is, in Civil Revision Nos. 280, 311, 312, 313 and 314 of 2002, counsel for the MDA has conceded that the calculations have to be made as per the guidelines given by the Apex Court in Sunder's case (supra) and in pursuance thereof the High Court has passed the order dated 30th September, 2004, referred hereinabove. It has not been informed that whether aforesaid order of the High Court has been challenged by the MDA in the Apex Court or not.

In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the revisions. In the result, the revisions, being devoid of merit, fail and stand dismissed.

Order Date :-5.7.2013

bgs/