National Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. vs Prem Nath Kapoor and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 3815 of 1986, as the question involved is common in both the cases.

The undisputed facts are that the land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), dated February 5, 1975. The Collector gave the award on October 9, 1975 by which the amount of compensation was determined at Rs. 1,10,179.00 and Rs. 16,593.40 as the solatium. This amount was paid on October 9, 1975. Reference was made to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act, but no enhancement was made in the amount awarded, by him. He decided the reference on January 2, 1979. Admittedly, the claimants never field any appeal against the order of the District Judge. However, a revision petition was filed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that since other cosharers had been given enhanced compensation, the same be allowed to them also. This Court allowed the revision petition on May 23, 1983, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,97,426.06. This amount was deposited in Court on January 14, 1984. The claimants again filed another civil revision petition in this Court for awarding severance charges which was also allowed by this Court on January 6, 1984 and a sum of Rs. 14,152.50 was determined as the severance charges. That amount was also paid on May 5, 1984. The claimants again moved this Court for the grant of interest and solatium on the severance charges, which was allowed on September 18, 1984. This amount of Rs. 10,573.59 was also paid on October 1, 1985. After the amendment of the Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the claimants again moved this Court for awarding the solatium and interest as admissible under the amended provisions of the Act. They were allowed the solatium and interest, as prayed on November 25, 1985, which has been paid to them during the pendency of this revision petition as directed by this Court vide order dated December 18, 1986, when the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,64,754.82. The present revision petitions are directed against the orders of the Additional District Judge, dated November 22, 1986, whereby the petitioner, i.e. the National Fertilizer Corporation, has been directed to make a payment od Rs. 3,33,687.08, in each case, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1773 of 1981 (Bharat Bhushan Jain v. Haryana State), decided on September 8, 1981; Meghraj v. Bayabai, A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 161 and L.I.C. of India v. B.R. Honnappa, A.I.R. 1973 Mysore 86. According to these rulings, the payments made by the judgmentdebtor from time to time could be appropriated first against the costs, then against the interest and finally towards the principal. Thus, according to the executing Court, the decreeholders were justified in appropriating the payments made by the judgmentdebtor from time to time in the aforesaid manner. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner for whom the land was acquired by the State of Haryana, has filed these revision petitions in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ratio of the abovesaid decisions was not applicable to the facts of the present cases because here, the amount was paid as and when determined either by the Collector or by this Court. Whenever the amount was paid, it was specifically mentioned as to whether it was paid towards compensation amount, solatium, or interest. In other words, at that time, it was made clear that a particular amount was paid towards the particular due. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the question of appropriating the sums by the decreeholder as held by the executing Court did to arise. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the decreeholders, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner was not competent to file the revision petition through the land might have been acquired for it. According to the learned counsel, the corporation may be a party to the land acquisition proceedings, but it was not competent to file any appeal etc. In support of the contention, the learned counsel upon Kulbhushan Kumar & Co. v. The State of Punjab, 1984 R.R.R. 674 : 1983 Punjab Law Journal 597. The learned counsel also reiterated the view taken by the executing Court on the basis of Bharat Bhushan Jain, Megh Raj and B.R. Honnappa''s cases (supra).

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the preliminary objection.

In the impugned orders itself, a direction has been given to the petition by the executing Court, to make the payment of the amounts, as noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. Thus, it is the petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned orders. That being the position, the revision petitions on behalf of the petitioner are maintainable. Besides, the present revision petitions have arisen out of the execution applications. Under Section 50 of the Act, the charges of and incidental to acquisition shall be defrayed from or by the fund of the company for which the land is acquired. The proviso thereto also provides that no such company shall be entitled to demand a reference under Section 18. As observed earlier, since these proceedings have arisen out of the execution applications, it could not be contented that the petitioner was not competent to file the revision petitions; particularly when in the impugned orders, a specific direction has been given to it to make the payments.

So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the decreeholders is concerned, there is no quarrel with the proposition law as laid down in Bharat Bhushan Jain, Megh Raj and B.R. Honnappa''s cases (supra), but the same are not applicable to the facts of the present cases. Here as and when the amount was determined either by the Collector or by this Court, the same was paid immediately against the particular demand. This being the situation, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the claimants that they were justified in appropriating the payment made by the judgmentdebtor first against the costs, then against the interest and finally against the principal. On the facts and circumstances of this case, that proposition is not available to the decreeholders.

Consequently, both the revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The executing Court shall dispose of the execution application in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before it on April 21, 1987. The records of the case be sent back forthwith.