Collector, Land
Acquisition & ANR. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors [2008] INSC 1553 (15
September 2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)
Nos.760-761/2006) The Collector, Land Acquisition and Anr. ...Appellants Versus
Jaswant Singh and Ors. ...Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in these
appeals is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court. A Revision Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution) was filed before the High Court
questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court, i.e
learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana holding that the respondents were
entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium. The petition was
dismissed in the -2- (7) SCC 211). It was held in the said case that the
interest is payable on theamount of solatium as well.
Learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that in the present case, the Reference Court had
categorically observed as follows while disposing of several land reference
cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short `the Act'):
"However, they
shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium."
It is submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the aforesaid categorical
finding of the Reference Court, the Executing Court could not have gone beyond
the decree. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that the matter was squarely covered by the decision in Sunder's case (supra)
and, therefore, the High Court was justified.
-3- In a subsequent
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gurpreet Executing Court was
examined. In paragraph-54, it was noted as follows.
"54 One other
question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not
referred toit. 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 -4- 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 -5- 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."
The High Court was
required to examine the position in the light of the decision in Gurpreet
Singh's case (supra) as the factual position has not been noted by the High
Court.
We, therefore, remit
the matter to the High Court to consider the matter in the light of what has
been stated in paragraph-54 of Gurpreet's case (supra).
The appeals are
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
.....................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.....................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2