Meerut Development Authority Thru'' Its Secy. vs Veer Pal & Others

Prakash Krishna, J.—Heard Sri B.Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present revision has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 2122005 passed in execution case no. 9 of 1995, which arose out of LAR no. 16 of 1989. The land of the decree holders opposite parties was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the present applicant. Market value of the land, so acquired, was determined. Thereafter, the decree holders opposite parties herein, applied for execution of the decree.

It appears that some objections were filed by Meerut Development Authority. Those objections were disposed of. The matter was carried in revision no. 312 of 2002, before this Court. This Court by the judgment dated 3092004 remanded the matter back to the executing court to recalculate the compensation amount along with interest in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India J.T. 2001 (8) SC 310. The executing court again by the impugned order recalculated the compensation amount and interest and reached to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 11,59,82244 paise with interest is payable by Meerut Development Authority to the decree holders. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed.

Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra) was considered by the Apex Court itself in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, 2007 (66) ALR 327, by a Constitution Bench. The submission is that the executing court be asked to recalculate the interest amount on the additional compensation in the light of the aforestated judgment of the Apex Court.

Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties decree holders, on the other hand, submits that since the earlier decision of this Court directing the executing court to calculate the compensation amount and interest in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra) has attained finality and, therefore, even if, there is subsequent judgment of the Apex Court, it will not affect the right of the decree holders.

Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that on earlier occasion, this Court in revision no. 312 of 2002, had directed the executing court to calculate the compensation amount and interest in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra). It is also not in dispute that the ratio of the said judgment has been modified by the Supreme Court itself subsequently in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra). While doing so, the Apex Court has taken precaution to clarify that the interest on solatium can be paid only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the executing court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any anterior period. It has been held that the State Government/acquiring body is liable to pay the interest on the solatium as well as on the additional amount. However, the payment of interest has been restricted in the case of pending execution cases from the date of the judgment of Sunder (supra) i.e. 1992001.

In this view of the matter, it is desirable that the executing court be asked to redetermine the interest amount on additional compensation payable w.e.f. 1992001 to the date of actual payment. Rest of the judgment of the executing court is confirmed. It shall not be open to the either party to raise any other plea.

Sri M.N. Singh, Advocate further informs the Court that in pursuance of the impugned order, the entire amount was paid to the decree holders, even before passing of the interim order in the present revision. The executing court has issued recovery against the decree holders after pasing of the interim order in the revision. The recovery proceedings against the decree holders shall remain stayed till passing of the final order, provided the decree holders file an undertaking on affidavit before the executing court that they will refund/deposit the excess amount within one month from the date of passing of final order by it. The said undertaking be filed within a period of one month.

With the aforesaid modifications, the revision stands allowed in part, as indicated above. The executing court will do good by passing final order preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.