Kusum Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2808 Chatt

                                                                 Page 1 of 7


                                                                        NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Order Reserved on : 09.09.2021

                        Order Passed on : 21/10/2021

                          W.P.(227) No. 831 of 2018

Purushottam Sharma, S/o. Shri Jainarayan Sharma, aged about 59 years,
R/o. House No. MIG 80, Post Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

1.    State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Raipur, District Raipur
       Chhattisgarh.

2.    Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division I, Raipur,
       District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Respondents

W.P.(227) No. 631 of 2018

Archana Sharma, D/o. Purushottam Sharma, aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No. MIG 80, Post-Tatibandh, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division I, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

AND

W.P.(227) No. 60 of 2019

Kusum Sharma, W/o. Dr. P. Sharma, H.No. MIG 80, Tatibandh, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division I, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunny Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent-State No.1 : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

C A V Order

1. All these petitions are heard and decided together by this common

order as they are arising out of the order dated 08.05.2018, passed

by the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Execution Case

No. 32/2019, 30/2019 and 31/2019 respectively.

2. The petitioners were the land owners and their lands were

acquisitioned by the State of Chhattisgarh for C.G. Housing Board.

The petitioners were not satisfied by the amount of compensation

awarded to them by the authorities, therefore, reference was made

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act, 1984"), before the Court of District Judge,

Raipur. The learned District Judge, Raipur passed an award dated

11.12.2009. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation

payable to the petitioners in all three cases. The petitioners filed

execution cases, which were registered as Execution Case

No.32/2009, 30/2009 & 31/2009 respectively, before the Executing

Court and they presented their calculations according to the award

passed by the learned District Judge, Raipur, in their respective

cases. The Executing Court has not accepted the calculations

submitted by the petitioners. The amount for satisfaction of decree

was calculated by the Court itself incorrectly and all execution cases

were closed on the ground that the decree was completely satisfied

in all the execution cases.

3. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that the

calculations made by the Executing Court in all the cases is

erroneous. According to the calculation submitted by the petitioners,

Rs.69,23,299/- was payable to the petitioner in W.P.(227) 831 of

2018, Rs.57,85,838/- was payable to the petitioner in W.P.(227)

No.631 of 2018 and Rs.68,73,774/- was payable to the petitioner in

W.P.(227) No. 60 of 2019.

4. It is further submitted that the compensation has to be calculated in

accordance with the Section 23 of the Act, 1894. Reliance has been

placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sunder Vs.

Union of India, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211. It is submitted that the

amount of compensation has to be calculated in accordance with the

provisions of Sub-section of Section 23, which includes solatium. The

learned Execution Court has made a miscalculation that all the

amount has been paid, whereas, amount of Rs.16,00,169/- is

remaining to be paid in W.P.(227) 831 of 2021. Similarly

Rs.13,37,356/- is remaining to be paid in W.P.(227) No.631 of 2018

and Rs.15,88,809/- is remaining to be paid in W.P.(227) No. 60 of

2019. Therefore, the calculations in the impugned orders are

erroneous, which needs correction. It is prayed that all the petitions

be allowed and appropriate orders be passed granting relief to the

petitioners.

5. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1

makes formal objection.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the petitions and

the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the

impugned orders are reasonable and lawful, which does not suffer

from any infirmity. The calculations submitted by the petitioners have

been denied and it is submitted that all the compensation as ordered

along with interest have been paid to the petitioners. It is also

submitted that the petitioners had remedy available to file appeal

against the impugned order under Section 54 of the Act, 1894,

therefore, there being statutory remedy available to the petitioners,

the petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not

maintainable. It is prayed that all the petitions be dismissed.

7. In reply, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the

impugned orders are the orders passed in execution cases, which

are not appeallable. Section 54 of the Act, 1894 provides for filing

appeal only against the award of the District Judge, therefore, the

petitions are maintainable. Further the petitioners are only

challenging the calculations made by the learned Executing Court

and praying for correction of the same, therefore, the petitions filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are maintainable.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

9. In W.P.(227) 831 of 2018, according to the award of compensation by

the Land Acquisition Officer/S.D.O., Raipur in award dated

13.08.2007, the total amount awarded with interest was

Rs.3,39,808/-. The reference order of the District Judge, Raipur

dated 11.12.2009, the award was enhanced to Rs.43,35,352/- with

direction that 9% interest shall be payable on difference amount from

the date of award of District Judge up till one year and subsequent to

that interest shall be payable @ 15% per annum. Therefore, same

has to be calculated accordingly.

10. The difference amount awarded by the District Judge from the award

granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.39,95,554/-. The

learned Execution Court has taken into consideration the difference

amount as Rs.24,64,000/- which is not correct calculation. The

amount of Rs. 24,64,000/- is mentioned in the reference order of

District Judge dated 11.12.2009 in which the interest were calculated

and added and the total amount of compensation was granted as

Rs.43,35,352/-. Subtracting the amount of award granted by the

SDO, the remaining amount that is difference amount stands at

Rs.39,95,554/-. Therefore, I am of this view that the calculation made

by the learned Executing Court is incorrect and order closing the

execution proceeding is also erroneous.

11. In W.P.(227) 631 of 2018, the award of compensation by the Land

Acquisition Officer was Rs.2,83,982/-, which was enhanced by the

reference Court in order dated 11.12.2019 to Rs.36,23,115/-. Similar

direction for payment of interest @ 9% was payable on difference

amount from the date of award of District Judge uptill one year and

subsequent to that interest was to be payable @ 15% per annum.

The difference amount in this case after subtracting the

compensation granted by the SDO is Rs.33,39,133/-. In this case

also the learned reference Court had mentioned difference amount of

Rs.20,59,200/-, in which after addition of interest, the total amount of

compensation was ordered to be Rs.36,23,115/-, therefore, the

difference amount mentioned in the impugned order is erroneous,

whereas, the actual difference amount is Rs.33,39,133/-. The learned

Executing Court should have calculated the interest accordingly.

Hence, the impugned order in this case also is erroneous.

12. In W.P.(227) No. 60 of 2019, the award of compensation granted by

the Land Acquisition Officer was 3,37,381/-. The learned reference

Court by order dated 11.12.2009 enhanced the award to

Rs.43,04,384/-. The difference amount in this case is Rs.39,67,003/-.

The direction for payment of interest is same as ordered in other

cases.

13. The calculation in the impugned order is with respect to difference

amount, which is mentioned as Rs.24,46,400/- is erroneous as it is

because the difference amount calculated by the learned reference

Court before adjudicating the complete compensation to be awarded

Rs.43,04,384/-, therefore, the learned Executing Court committed

error in taking into consideration the different amount mentioned in

the impugned order, which is not the difference amount for the

execution case. The difference amount for the execution case would

be Rs.39,67,003/- as the actual amount on which the interest was

required to be calculated as per the order of the reference Court.

Hence, the order passed by the Executing Court in this case is also

erroneous, which is based on miscalculation.

14. After considering on the submissions and making calculation, with

respect to difference in amount, in compensation that was granted by

the reference Court compared to what was granted by the Land

Acquisition Officer/SDO in all three cases, the respective figures of

difference in amount have been mentioned here-in-above on which

there is requirements for making calculation and for giving finding as

to whether the award has been satisfied or not. Therefore, all the

three petitions are allowed. The impugned orders in all three cases

are set-aside. The learned Executing Court is directed to take into

consideration the difference amount as calculated in this order and

continue with the execution proceeding in all the cases, until the

same are satisfied.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Balram