Sidagam Appayamma (died per L.Rs.) and another v. Land Acquisition Officer, Y.R.P. Unit No.1, Yeleswaram, E.G.District

Order

16-04-2010 Between;

1. Sidagam Appayamma (died per L.Rs.) and another …Petitioner Land Acquisition Officer, Y.R.P. Unit No.1, Yeleswaram, E.G.District. …Respondent The Court made the following Order:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3474 of 2006 Oral Order The petitioner/decree-holder filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for revising the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram passed in E.P.No.45 of 1986 in O.P.No.76 of 1984 dated 31-01-2005. When the petitioner/decree-holder filed the above E.P. seeking attachment of sale of petition schedule property for due recovery of the compensation amount awarded in O.P.No.76 of 1984 dated 08-11-1985 calculation memo has been filed by the judgment debtor (JDR). The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the decree- holder received an amount 4,85,944/- as on 23-11-1992 in excess to the amount due to him and liable to return the said amount with interest at 15% per annum from 23-11-1992 till the date of payment. Admittedly, the award was passed for a sum of Rs.1,49,335.27Ps. and paid the same on 15-07-1993 under various heads, viz., land value, trees value, structural value and interest from the date of taking possession i.e. 09-02-1980 till the date of payment. On reference being made in the above O.P. the lower court fixed the market value at Rs.31,000/- per acre and Rs.40,200/- towards value of the trees and Rs.13,000/- towards value of the structures with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value from the date of notification till the date of award or taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Interest was awarded at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation. The same has been confirmed by the High Court in A.S.No.247 of 1987 and on such confirmation, the JDR deposited Rs.3,27,068.40 Ps. on 24-03-1987; Rs.3,33,200/- on 07-09-1991 and Rs.6,02,964/- on 23-11-1992. On reference Court passing the order holding that the decree-holder received Rs.4,85,944/- in excess of the amount due to him and JDR is at liberty to take suitable steps for recovery of the payment as per law, revision—C.R.P.No.4838 of 1997 was preferred and this Court by order dated 12-04-2002 disposed of the same, remitting the matter to the lower court to dispose of afresh by taking fresh calculation memo and evidence, if any, produced by the parties in the light of the Apex Court in SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA[1]. In view of the same, calculation memo filed by the decree- holder appears to be not in tune with the dicta laid by the Apex Court in the above judgment. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in GURPREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA[2] clarified that 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’s case (1 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. It was further clarified that 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’s case (1 supra) i.e. 19-09-2001 and not for any prior period. This Court in C.R.P.No.273 of 2008 and batch dated 05–06- 2009 directed the executing court to have a fresh calculation as under:

1. The executing court has to arrive the compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. yard after giving deduction of the amount deposited under the award in compliance with the decree passed in OP and from the date of such payment, the above amount shall not carry any further interest except difference of interest payable on the compensation including land value and solatium;

2. Solatium should be calculated at 30% on such enhanced compensation minus amount already paid at the rate of 15%;

3. The executing court has to calculate interest at 9% per annum for a period of one year the date of taking possession on compensation arrived at Rs.40/- per sq.yard and 30% solatium on the market value so arrived till it is deposited by giving credit to the interest paid at 4% and arrive the balance of interest payable on such amount, and from the date of deposit of the principal amount including 15% solatium into court the claimants are not entitled to further interest on such amount except enhanced solatium and higher rate of interest on the market value. If the principal amount under any of the heads namely, land value, structural value, trees value, enhanced solatium has not been fully satisfied as per the decree, such part of the amount shall carry interest till it is paid.

4. Though the claimants are not entitled to additional market value at 12% per annum, the decree passed by this court in AS No.1970/1985 awarding additional market value at 12% per annum has become final and same has not been challenged, the said amount has to be deposited from the date of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act till the date of passing award. As claimants are not entitled to additional market value, they are not entitled to interest on such market value. In view of the same, the lower court has to calculate the amount to be deposited under various heads, and after adjusting the amount already paid what is the amount due to be paid to the decree- holder, as referred above, and decide the same afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is need less to say when the claimants are entitled to receive interest at 15% per annum on the compensation due, they are equally liable to refund the excess amount, if any, received by them with interest at 15% per annum. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted to the executing court to dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the directions issued herein above. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J 16-04-2010 Murthy