Land Acquisition Collector and Others vs Gian Chand Kuthiala

Surjit Singh, J.—Present Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30th December, 2008 of learned District Judge, whereby application, under Order 21 Rules 11 & 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the revision Petitioners, i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh, for refund of money, equivalent to the interest awarded by the Collector, for the period prior to the date of issuance of notification, has been rejected.

Certain property of Respondent Gian Chand Kuthiala had been acquired by the revision Petitioners for a public purpose. Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired property and ordered the payment of market value, together with solatium and interest from the date of taking over of the possession, which was earlier to the date of issue of notification, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Respondent approached the Collector, for making reference to the District Judge, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned District Judge, acting on that reference, enhanced the compensation, vide award dated 29th March, 2007 and ordered payment of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of notification, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned District Judge, together with interest, etc., was deposited with the learned District Judge, by the revision Petitioners.

After the deposit of the money, revision Petitioners, taking a cue from the award of the District Judge that the interest had been awarded from the date of the notification, made an application, under Order 21 Rules 11 & 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for refund of a portion of the money deposited with the District Judge, equivalent to the amount, representing interest awarded and paid by the Collector, for the period prior to the date of issuance of notification, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. That application has been rejected by the learned District Judge, vide impugned order. It is this order, which has been challenged by the revision Petitioners, by means of the present petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

A Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), has held that once the sum enhanced by the Reference Court, alongwith interest, is deposited by the State, there will be no occasion for the claimant/awardee to seek re-opening of the amount awarded by the Collector and substituted by the amount awarded by the Reference Court and to have a re-appropriation of the amount towards what is due. It has also been held that when the Reference Court enhances the compensation, taking note of Sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and also awards interest on the enhanced amount, as per Section 28 of the Act, and costs, in terms of Section 27 of the Act, the Collector has the duty to deposit these amounts, pursuant to the award of the Reference Court, which is a deemed decree.

In the present case, the money, which had been deposited with the District Judge was to satisfy the award of the District Judge and, therefore, no portion of it could be refunded to the revision Petitioners, on account of Collector allegedly having wrongly awarded interest from a date prior to the date of notification, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending application stands disposed of, having become infructuous.