Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for ESSAR Gujarat v. Kammili Veera Kumari

Order

ORDER: In all the revision petitions, that arises consideration is with regard to appropriation of amounts of compensation deposited at various stages and entitlement of the decree holders for interest on solatium and additional market value as calculated by the Executing Court is correct or not. Hence, they are

being heard together and disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.Nos.5840, 5841, 5842, 5843, 5844, 5845 and 5846 of 2008 arise out of Execution Applications being E.A.Nos.876/2008 in E.P.No.375/2003; E.A.No.875/2008 E.P.No.361/2003; E.A.No.871/2008 E.P.No.294/2003; E.A.No.872/2008 E.P.No.6/2004; E.A.No.870/2008 E.P.No.290/2003; E.A.No.877/2008 in E.P.No.5/2004; and E.A.No.874/2008 E.P.No.4/2004 respectively, whereas C.R.P.Nos.3578 to 3580/2009 and 3620 to 3623/2009 are filed against E.P.Nos.6/2004; 4/2004; 294/2003; 5/2004; 290/2003; 361/2003 and 375/2003 respectively. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to filing of these revision petitions are as under. In this batch of revisions, the Land Acquisition Officer, appointed by the Government for the purpose of Establishing Pelletisation and Sponge Iron Plants by M/s. ESSAR Gujarat Limited, Kakinada, challenges the individual orders passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in execution proceedings. The lands of the respondents herein have been acquired for the benefit of M/s. ESSAR Gujarat Limited, Kakinada, by taking recourse to the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The awards are passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.63,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the fixation of market value, the claimants sought reference of the matter to the civil Court. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court by its common judgment dated

30.09.1999 enhanced the compensation and fixed the market value at Rs.97,650/- per acre with all statutory benefits such as 30% solatium on the enhanced market value and 12% additional market value on the enhanced compensation, and interest @ 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of taking possession i.e., 28.08.1990 and thereafter 15% p.a. on the difference of market value till the payment, but denied the interest on additional market value and solatium. Seeking further enhancement the claimants preferred appeals, and questioning the enhancement made by the lower Court the Land Acquisition Officer preferred cross-objections. This Court by common order dated 13.08.2002 in A.S.Nos.616 of 2000 and batch, allowed the appeals filed by the claimants enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,69,400/- per acre while dismissing the cross-objections filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. This Court further ordered that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in S.L.P (Civil) C.C.No.4196-4201/2003 were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 6.05.2003. On dismissal of the above Special Leave Petitions, the claimants filed E.Ps for payment of differential balance amount including interest on solatium and additional market value. The executing Court by its order dated

11.10.2004 ordered that the claimants are entitled to interest on 30% solatium and also on 12% additional market value. Questioning the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed C.R.P.Nos.484, 486, 487, 528, 529, 530 and 531 of 2005 challenging grant of interest on solatium and additional market value. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 9.03.2006 dismissed the revision petitions confirming the order passed by the Executing Court allowing interest on solatium and additional market value and the same has become final. On dismissal of revisions, the executing Court by the impugned order dated 25.08.2008 calculated the compensation amount together with statutory benefits and interest on the amounts due and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amounts arrived at as per the calculations. Challenging the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed above execution applications seeking amendment of calculations made by the executing Court as per the order passed on 27.02.2008 contending that the calculations are not correct. The lower Court dismissed all the E.As., holding that the order was already passed on

27.02.2008 in the E.Ps., showing the amount payable by the petitioner to the respondents, and without preferring any revisions challenging the said order, the E.As filed for amendment of calculations are not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the E.As. Questioning the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed C.R.P.Nos.5840 to 5846 of 2008, C.R.P.Nos.3578 to 3580 of 2009 and 3620 to 3623 of 2009 against the orders passed in E.P’s dated 27.02.2008 with an application for condonation of delay. Sri K.V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the executing Court in E.Ps. calculating the amount due is not correct since it cannot go beyond the decree passed in the O.Ps where the executing Court specifically denied the interest on solatium and additional market value. The High Court while enhancing the compensation neither set aside the said decree nor modified the same. Once the High Court did not vary with the decree passed by the trial Court insofar as denial of interest on solatium and additional market value, calculating the same by the executing Court cannot be sustainable. He further contended that while calculating the compensation due as per the enhancement made, the executing Court has not deducted the compensation awarded and paid under various heads by the Land Acquisition Officer or the deposits made by the Land Acquisition Officer to satisfy the decree in O.P. on enhancement made by the reference Court under various heads. Therefore, the entire calculation made and the order passed by the lower Court is liable to be set aside. Per contra Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam and Sri M. Rama Rao contended that even though the reference Court negatived grant of interest, but the High Court while allowing the appeals preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, specifically directed that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits. In view of the same, the lower Court allowed the E.Ps. on 11.10.2004 granting interest on additional market value and solatium, which has been confirmed by this Court in revisions and the same cannot be re-agitated. I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel that the claimants are not entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium. It is not in dispute that against the orders passed by the reference Court the claimants carried the matter in A.S.Nos.616 of 2000 and batch seeking further enhancement, wherein the appellants specifically contended that denying interest on additional market value and solatium by the civil Court to decide the reference under Section 18 of the Act, is not justified and prayed for enhancement of compensation and to ward interest on solatium and additional market value. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the appeals preferred by the respondents herein for enhancement of compensation, held in addition compensation enhanced by it, the respondents herein are entitled to all statutory benefits. While interpreting the said judgment, this Court in C.R.P.No.484 of 2005 and batch, dated 9.03.2006 confirmed the order passed by the executing Court dated 11.10.2004. Since the same has become final, it is not open for the petitioners to re-agitate the same contention. Further the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India[1] at paragraph 54 categorically held as under. 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 v. Union of India[2] the compensation awarded and say includes solatium and in such an event interest 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 (19.09.2001) and not for any pri0or period. It is further contended that the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the executing Court directing to deposit the amount as per the calculation made by it is not in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC as envisaged in Premnath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd.,[3] case and as approved by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Sing’s case (1 supra). The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that since the order passed by the executing Court dated 11.10.2004 has been confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.484 of 2005 and batch, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the amounts as calculated are not in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 CPC and the same calculation has been accepted by calculating the interest on the amounts due under various heads. Therefore, the same needs no interference. In the light of the above submissions it has to be seen whether the order passed by the executing Court and the calculation made by it are in accordance with Order XXI Rule 1 CPC or not. The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh’s case (1 supra) at paragraphs 32 to 35 dealt with various stages for awarding of compensation and the question of appropriation of amount at different stages, and after referring to the various stages for the amount payable, accepted principles laid down for appropriation of amounts in Premnath Kapur’s case (3 supra), wherein it has been held that the liability to pay interest is only on the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on the amount already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act and paid to the party or deposited into the Court or determined under Section 26 or Section 54 of the Act or on solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act and additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Admittedly on passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.63,000/- per acre + 30% solatium on it and interest on the compensation awarded from the date of taking possession to the date of payment. In view of the same, once the award amount is paid at Rs.63,000/- per acre with interest, the said amount will not carry any further interest from the date of such payment. Only the enhanced amount of compensation is liable to be paid with solatium and additional market value together with interest from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. It is needless to say that the entire enhanced compensation together with interest, as per the decree passed, was deposited into the credit of the O.Ps., on 31.05.2000. On such deposit the enhanced compensation, namely, as awarded by the reference Court including solatium ceased to carry any further interest from the date of such deposit. This Court by order dated 13.8.2002 passed in A.S.Nos.616 of 2000 and batch further enhanced the compensation at Rs.1,69,400/- as against Rs.97,650/- awarded by the reference Court on 13.09.1999, by allowing the appeals filed by the claimants. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and 12% additional market value on the enhancement made by this Court i.e., on Rs.71,750/- (1,69,400 – Rs.97,650/-), interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession and interest on 30% solatium and additional market value from 19.09.2001 as held by the Constitution Bench in Gurpreet Singh’s case (1 supra). For the reasons aforementioned, the calculation made by the executing Court through the impugned order is not in tune with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Premnath Kapur’s case (3 supra) as approved in Gurpreet Sigh’s case (1 supra). The same is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the executing Court to calculate afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 21st August, 2009 Js.