Dharmasivam vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 15105 Mad

                                                                                 C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 28.07.2021

                                                           CORAM

                                     THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA


                                             C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017


                 1.Dharmasivam
                 2.S.Rukmani
                 3.Balaji
                 4.C.Jeyanthi
                 5.Thangavel                                 ...                           Petitioners

                                                            Vs.

                 1.The District Collector,
                   Erode District,
                   Erode.

                 2.The Special Tahsildar (L.A)
                   (Adi Dravidar Welfare Office) of
                    Collectorate, Erode.          ...                           Respondents

                 PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
                 Procedure Code, to set aside the order and decretal order dated 05.10.2016
                 made in EP.No.23/2014 in L.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 2002 on the file of the II
                 Additional District Court, Erode.

                                         For Petitioners    : Mr.T.S.Baskaran

                                         For Respondents : Dr.S.Suriya
                                                             (Government Counsel)


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

                 1/8
                                                                                 C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017




                                                        ORDER

(Heard through video conferencing)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of the

learned Executing Judge /II Additional District Judge, Erode, dated 05.10.2016

passed in E.P.No.23/2014 in L.A.C.M.A.No.17/2002.

2. In a land acquisition proceedings, a compensation has been awarded for

acquiring the lands belonging to these Civil Revision Petitioners. Having not

satisfied with the compensation given by the Government, the owners of the

land have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Forum and as per the Award

passed in L.A.C.M.A.No.17/2002 the following decree has been passed:

“jPh;tk;

1.nfhhpf;ifahsh;fSf;F vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fs;/ ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l ,lj;jpw;F rJuo 1-f;F ,Hg;gPl;Lj; bjhifia +.110_- vd;W Tl;o mWjpapl;L mjpy; 15 rjtPjk; MWjy; bjhifahf juntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.

2.nkw;go bjhiffSf;F TLjy; bjhifahf 12 rjtPjk; juntz;Lk; vd;Wk;/ nkw;go bkhj;j bjhiffSf;F 4(1) mwptpg;g[ bfhLf;fg;gl;l ehshd 16-02-1999k; njjpapypUe;J nfhhpf;ifahsh;fs; Vw;fdnt bgw;Wf; bfhz;l bjhifia fHpj;Jf; bfhz;L kPjKs;s bjhifia vjph;nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fs; 2 khj fhyj;jpwFs; 9 rjtPj tl;onahL nrh;j;J ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.

3.2 khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; itg;gPL bra;ahj gl;rj;jpy; 15 rjtPj tl;onahL nrh;j;J ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.

4.nfhhpf;ifahsh;fs; jug;g[ bryt[j; bjhifahf +.5013_- brYj;jntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

5.nfhhpf;ifahsh;fs; tHf;fwp"h; fl;lzkhf +.5000_- vd eph;zapj;J mjid jdp fhnrhiy \yk; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.”

3. The said award was challenged by the Government by way of preferring a

Second Appeal and the same was also dismissed. In view of the same, the

award has attained finality. When the decree holders filed the Execution

Petition for recovery of the said award amount along with the interest the

learned Executing Judge has accepted the calculation filed by the respondent

and recorded full satisfaction.

4. Now the Civil Revision Petitioners submitted that if the interest amount

is calculated in accordance with the terms of the award that will exceed the

balance amount that was calculated by the respondents in their calculation

Memo. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Civil Revision

Petitioners that the respondents made the first payment towards the decree

amount only on 29.04.2003, as per the order of this Court. Though the amount

that has to be paid as per the interim order was Rs.35,87,258.27/-, a sum of Rs.

35,35,684/- only has been paid on 29.04.2003. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioners the said amount ought to have been credited towards the

interest. But it has been credited towards the principal and thereafter the

subsequent interest have been calculated on the remaining amount.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in

2014 (3) LW 520 [K.G.Krishnamoorthi & others Vs. The Sub Collector,

Pollachi rep. by Tahsildar, Udumalpet and another] and claimed that

whenever the payment is made for the amount awarded by the Court and the

deposit is made in pursuance of the interim order of the Appellate Courts, the

said amount should be appropriated only towards interest. The law is laid so by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India

reported in 2006 (8) SCC 457. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as follows:-

“52. What is to happen when a part of the amount awarded by the reference court or by the appellate court is deposited pursuant to an interim order of the appellate court or of the further appellate court and the awardee is given the liberty to withdraw that amount? In such a case, the amount would be received by the decree holder on the strength of the interim order and the appropriation will be subject to the decision in the appeal or the further appeal and the direction, if any, contained therein. In such a case, if the appeal is disposed of in his favour, the decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the amount already received by him pursuant to the interim order first towards interest then towards costs and the balance towards principal as on date of the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on the balance amount of enhanced compensation by levying execution. But on that part appropriated towards the principal, the interest would cease from the date on which the amount is received by the awardee.

Of course, if while passing the interim order, the court had indicated as to how the deposited amount is to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

appropriated, that direction will prevail and the appropriation could only be done on the basis of that direction. ”

The said proposition has been followed by this Court in the subsequent decision

reported in 2014 (3) Law Weekly 520 (cited supra). When the method to

deduct the payment made in pursuance of the interim order has been laid as

above, the Executing Court omitted to adopt the said method and proceeded to

record Full Satisfaction basing on the calculation sheet produced by the

respondent Government.

6. In view of the same, some discrepancies have arisen in arriving at the

outstanding award amount and that has to be set right. If the interest is not

calculated properly in accordance with the terms of the decree, the correct

amount that has to be paid by the respondents cannot be arrived at. Only after

arriving at the right figure by adopting the law laid in the above judgment with

regard to appropriation towards the interest part, the Executing Court should

give credit to the payments made by the respondents. But in this Execution

Proceedings, the learned Executing Judge did not adopt the right method and

Full Satisfaction was recorded on the basis of the calculation sheet filed by the

respondent Government.

7. Even according to the learned Government Advocate for the respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

the interest on the solatium is omitted to be calculated. Since there are certain

discrepancies in the calculation of the decree amount with interest, the Full

Satisfaction recorded by the Executing Court is liable to be set aside and the

matter needs to be remanded back to the Execution Court itself to do the

exercise afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy

of this order by receiving a fresh calculation memo from both sides and by

giving credit for the payments made on interim order, against the interest

segment.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the

learned Executing Judge /II Additional District Judge, Erode, dated 05.10.2016

passed in E.P.No.22/2014 in L.A.C.M.A.No.16/2002, is set aside and the matter

is remanded back to the II Additional District Court, Erode, in order to give a

fresh disposal of the petition without getting influenced by its earlier order. The

parties are at liberty to file their respective calculation memo before the

Execution Court . No costs.

28.07.2021 (½) Speaking/Non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No jrs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

To

1.The II Addl. District Court, Erode.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

R.N.MANJULA,J.

jrs

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1052 of 2017

28.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/