Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, ... vs Malik Sartaz Wali Khan & Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 362 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 9
 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 505 of 2014
 
Revisionist :- Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly
 
Opposite Party :- Malik Sartaz Wali Khan & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- B.D.
 
Mandhyan,M.C.Chaturvedi,Satish Mandhyan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- M.H. Zaidi,Mahtab Alam
 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the

revisionist and Shri Mahtab Alam for the opposite party.

The instant revision at the instance of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi

Samiti, Bareilly is directed against the order dated 26.02.2003

passed in Execution Case No.1 of 2003. The Execution Case

was instituted for executing an award of the Court made on

20.09.2000, which has subsequently been modified by the Apex

Court in Civil Appeal No.515 of 1999 directing payment of

30% solatium, on the compensation awarded.

Before the executing Court,two questions arose for

determination. The first was whether the solatium awarded by

the Apex Court, while modifying the award, would attract

payment of interest, thereon. The other issue was regarding the

mode of calculation of the compensation awarded.

By the order impugned, the executing Court has held that any

payment made is to be first adjusted towards interest and costs

and thereafter, towards the principal outstanding. In so far as,

this part of the impugned order is concerned, there appears to be

no dispute between the parties.

The only issue in this revision is that the executing Court has

held that solatium is part of the compensation and therefore, in

view of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, interest is liable

to be paid thereon, also.

The contention of Shri M.C. Chaturvedi appearing for the

revisionist is that solatium become part of the compensation

awarded only after incorporation of sub section 1-A in Section

23 of the Land Acquisition Act w.e.f. 24.09.1984. Prior to this

incorporation, there was no statutory provision requiring

payment of solatium. Therefore, the solatium amount held

payable to the claimant in this case is on account of the decree

of the Apex Court. Interest on this amount would be payable

only if the Apex Court had directed payment of interest. No

such direction was issued and therefore, the executing Court

could not have gone behind the decree and granted relief

beyond that granted by the decree to be executed.

The other limb of the argument is that the solatium had been

made part of the compensation payable and calculated under

Section 23 on account of incorporation of Sub-section 1-A, in

the said Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. This

incorporation has been made almost a decade after the

acquisition proceedings and after the award of the Collector

was made on 22.10.1973.

Counsel appearing for the claimant opposite party has tried to

justify the award of interest on the solatium. He has placed

reliance upon the citation referred to in the impugned order

itself.

He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court

in Seshan and others Vs. Specil Tehsildar & Land Acquisition

Officer, Spicot, Pudukkottai (1996) 8 SCC 89. In this case, the

Apex Court has held that a claimant is entitled to compensation

as provided by the amended Sections 34, 28 and 23(2) of the

Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act No.68 of 1934, in

case, the award of the Collector was made after the introduction

of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, which

culminated in the amending Act No.68 of 1984.

Although, this judgement has been cited by the counsel for the

claimant opposite party, in my considered opinion, it holds

against him.

From a bare reading of the judgement and the ratio thereof, it

necessarily follows that the amending provisions of Sections

34, 28 and 32 would not be applicable to the cases, where the

award of the Collector has been made prior to the introduction

of the Bill, which culminated in the amending Act No.68 of

1984. In the case at hand, the award of the Collector was made

in October 1973.

I, therefore, find substance in the submission of counsel for the

revisionist that on the date of the award in favour of the

claimant opposite party, solatium, if any, was not part of the

compensation payable. Therefore, interest thereon, would

accrue only if the decree directed for payment of interest on the

solatium awarded.

No interest appears to have been directed to be paid on the

solatium. In absence of a decree for payment of interest on

solatium, it was not open for the executing Court to have

awarded interest, thereon, relying upon a provision, namely,

Sub-section 1-A of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act,

which has been incorporated in the statute book more than a

decade after the award was made in favour of the claimant.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order in so

far as it grants interest also on solatium cannot be sustained and

is liable to be and is hereby, set aside. The revision is

accordingly allowed. The order passed by the executing Court

on 26.02.2003 is hereby set aside only to the extent it provides

and takes into takes into account, payment of interest on the

solatium awarded to the claimant opposite party.

The matter is remitted back to the executing Court to calculate

the compensation payable, afresh. It is, further clarified that the

re-calculation shall be made without calculating any interest on

the amount of solatium, which is payable to the claimant

opposite party.

Order Date :- 4.5.2018

RKM