Delhi High Court
Shri Hem Chander vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 23.11.2011
+ CM (M) No. 568/2010
SHRI HEM CHANDER ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya and Mr. Sunil
Dahiya, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..........Respondent
Through: Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.
Navlin Swain, Advocates for
respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The issue to be decided is as to whether the interest on
solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the „LAC Act‟) is payable in the instant case.
2. Arguments addressed by both the parties have been
appreciated.
3. These proceedings were proceedings under the LAC Act.
The impugned order is dated 14.05.2009. Certain dates are
undisputed.
The Reference Petition under Section 18 of the LAC
had been decided by the Reference Court on 25.05.2000.
The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to
Rs.47,224/- per bigha. The decree was silent about interest
on solatium. Execution proceedings were pending before the
Executing Court when vide an application dated 13.02.2009,
the applicant sought a reappropriation of the decretal
amount; he had filed a review statement of account along
with this application. On 14.05.2009, this application was
accepted and in terms of the judgment reported in Gurpreet
Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, the Nazir was
directed to calculate interest. Para 54 of the said judgment
is relevant and reads herein as under:-
"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 counsel to
address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the
decision in Sunder (supra), the awardee/decree holder would be entitled
to claim interest on solatium in execution though 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 for 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 (supra) 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 (supra) 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 (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior
period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation 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."
4. In terms thereof it is clear that in a pending execution
interest on solatium can be claimed which the applicant had
claimed and was rightly granted. However, the rider attached in
para 54 of Gurpreet Singh (Supra) also states that this would not
entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree
holder; meaning thereby that it is only the interest on solatium
which can be granted to the applicant/decree holder. Contention
of the petitioner that he should be granted interest under Section
28 of the LAC from the date of his dispossession is an argument
without merit; the judgment of Gurpreet Singh (Supra) disentitles
the petitioner even in pending execution to such any
reappropriation or fresh appropriation of the decree. Petition is
without any merit.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2011
A
