G. Chandrasekharan Nair vs State of Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.—The petitioner is seeking a review of judgment in the appeal as well as a review of the interim order passed in C.M. Application No. 972/2011, through which the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The appeal in question was filed along with application seeking condonation of delay of 1516 days in filing the appeal. The said application was seriously opposed by the Government. This Court took the view that it is better to adjudicate the appeal on merits otherwise than deciding it on technicalities. Therefore, this Court passed an order dated 28.7.2011 in C.M. Application No. 972/2011 condoning the delay subject to the following conditions:-

"(1) The appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the Government through the office of the Advocate General within three weeks from today and produce receipt.

(2) The appellant will pay a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit and produce receipt.

(3) In the event of appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act during the period of 1516 days condoned by this order. Annex a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in this appeal. Once registry notices receipt against payment of the said amount, the appeal will be sent up for admission."

In the above order itself, this Court had directed the registry to annex a copy of the said order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal. Subsequently, the appeal was disposed of on 24.8.2011 awarding enhancement of the compensation. In the judgment this Court observed that the appellant will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under section 23(2) and 23(1A) and section 28 of the Act on the total refixed compensation. But, it is made clear that while drafting the decree and while provision is made for interest under section 28, due regard should be given to the conditions imposed while condoning the delay.

In this review petition it is mentioned that the State had deposited the amount in terms of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in the appeal. But, the State has now moved E.A. No. 108/2014 before the court below for restitution of sum of Rs. 16,57,885/-, presumably claiming back the amount of interest deposited by way of wrong calculation or without noticing the terms incorporated in the decree. In the present application the petitioner is virtually seeking a review of the order passed in C.M. Application No. 972/2011, imposing condition No. 3 while allowing the condonation of delay.

Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed in the C.M. Application at the time of admitting the appeal, cannot be reviewed after disposal of the appeal. What was incorporated in the decree is only the conditions stipulated while condoning the delay. This Court specifically directed the registry to draw the decree in accordance with those conditions. The petitioner has no case that he had challenged the order condoning the delay, at any point of time. Nor had a case that he questioned the decree to the said extent before any appropriate court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the right to get the interest on the enhanced compensation is a statutory right conferred by virtue of provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, any reduction in the quantum of the statutory interest cannot be made by the appellate court. He had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Dharam Das, . The dictum therein is to the effect that interest must be awarded as per the statutory rates as specified in the Act and equitable considerations is not at all relevant while fixing the rate of interest. According to the learned counsel, while disposing the appeal this court ought to have fixed the interest in the manner as prescribed under the statute and no deviation could be made. We are afraid, the above said dictum cannot be put into service on the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Here, while admitting the appeal by condoning the delay, this Court had imposed various conditions including a condition that the appeal is admitted subject to non-entitlement of interest other than admissible under section 28 on the enhanced compensation, if any awarded, for the period during which delay was caused in filing the appeal. Such a condition was incorporated for the purpose of condoning the inordinated delay caused in filing the appeal. It cannot taken as a denial of the statutory interest.

Under the above mentioned circumstances we are of the considered opinion that there exists no error apparent on the face of record of the judgment or the order condoning the delay. Nor there exists any legal ground warranting review of the judgment or the order.

Hence the review petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.