Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan State Mines And ... vs Lrs Of Balaram on 21 July, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

(1 of 5) [CW-12242/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12242/2020

Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd., (A Govt. of Rajasthan Enterprises) (CIN-U1409RJ1949SGC000505) Registered Office: C-89/90 Lal Kothi Scheme, JAIPUR-302 015 Corporate Office: 4 MEERA MARG, UDAIPUR-313 001 (RAJ.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri SITARAM S/o Shri Asharam Jat, R/o Matasukh, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan

2. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, Through: District Collector, Nagaur, Rajasthan

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11135/2020 RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LIMITED, (A Govt. of Rajasthan Enterprises) (CIN-U1409RJ1949SGC000505) Registered Office: C-89/90 Lal Kothi, Scheme, JAIPUR- 302 015 Corporate Office: 4 MEERA MARG, UDAIPUR- 313 001 (RAJ.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. LRs of BALARAM:

1. Shri Teja Ram S/o Late Shri Balaram, R/o Matasukh, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. Presently R/o 112 Rail Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Shri Hari Ram S/o Late Shri Balaram.

3. Shri Nathu Ram S/o Late Shri Balaram.

4. Smt. Suva Devi (Died).

6. Smt. Kunwari Devi D/o Late Shri Balaram. All above R/o Matasukh, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

2. State of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents





                                         (2 of 5)                [CW-12242/2020]




For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                               Devesh Purohit
                               Ms. Kamini Joshi
                               Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Puneet Jain through VC
                               Mr. Raj Kumar Pareek
                               Ms. Priya Pareek
                               Mr. Teja Ram Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

21/07/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petitions have been filed against the order

dated 26.09.2019 passed by the District Judge Merta, Rajasthan in

Execution Case Nos.1/2011 and 2/2011.

Learned Senior counsel submits that while passing the order

dated 26.09.2019, the learned trial court has committed an error

while calculating the interest on the solatium amount awarded in

the acquisition proceedings. Learned Senior counsel firstly, submits

that the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the solatium

amount. Secondly, he submits that the date of awarding the

interest in the present case is taken as 07.11.1997, which is

incorrect as actually the date on which the last Section 4

notification for acquisition of land published in the newspaper

dated 23.05.1998 should have been taken into consideration. He,

therefore, submits that the learned Executing Court has committed

an error while calculating the amount in the present case.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

submits that there is no error in the order passed by the learned

District Judge on 26.09.2019 as the respondents-claimants are

(3 of 5) [CW-12242/2020]

entitled for the interest on the solatium amount in the light of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet

Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457. As

far as the second contention, learned counsels for the respondents

submit that the respondents-claimants are entitled to the benefit

of the acquisition proceedings w.e.f. 07.11.1997 as the

controversy with respect to the date of Section 4 notification has

attained finality right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

therefore, the date of getting the benefits will remain 07.11.1997

and no other date can be substituted in the execution proceedings.

He, therefore, submits that the present writ petitions filed by the

petitioners may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the order impugned as well as the other relevant

record of the case.

The first argument raised by the Senior counsel with respect

to the entitlement of the respondents-claimants on the interest

amount of solatium is not sustainable in the eye of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh

(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"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 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

(4 of 5) [CW-12242/2020]

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."

Thus, the respondents-claimants are entitled for interest on

solatium amount as held by the Executing Court in its order dated

26.09.2019.

As far as the second contention with respect to the date of

calculation of the acquisition award is concerned, the same has

attained finality right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

date is taken to be 07.11.1997 i.e. the date of issuance of Section

4 notification.

This Court while deciding the S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal

No.7/2011 and S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.8/2011 on 21.07.2011

preferred by the petitioners have taken this date of 07.11.1997 as

the date of issuance of Section 4 notification and this date has