The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer vs S.M. Kaja Mohideen Sahib and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Land Acquisition Officer, is the revision Petitioner.

The lands of the claimants were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and an award of Rs. 100/-per cent was ordered in LAOP. No. 90 of 1987 and in the LAOP Rs. 3200/-per cent was awarded against the same, A.S. No. 220 and 256 were filed by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer and by common judgment of this Court enhanced the compensation Rs. 4,000/-per cent. Thereafter, the claimants filed E.P for the realization of compensation amount. In this case 4(1) notification was dated 25.04.1984 and award was passed on 10.08.1987 and possession was taken on 17.08.1987. While calculating the amount the claimants have calculated interest as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act, on the amount of compensation and on the solarium at the rate of 12% per annum and after appropriating the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer calculated the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum as per Section 28 and calculated a sum of Rs. 30, 10,936.20.

The revision Petitioner filed counter stating that the calculation memo given by the claimants is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and according to him a sum of Rs. 3,72,074/-is liable to be paid and therefore the claimants are not entitled to the amount prayed for in the execution petition.

Mr. K. Nallathambi, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per the Larger Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), , the interest is payable on solatium only from the date of judgment in Sunder Vs. Union of India, namely 19.09.2001 and earlier to that they are not entitled to claim that amount and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled to claim the amount as prayed for.

On the other hand, Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that in this case the award was passed in the year 1987 after coming to the act of amendment 16 of 1984 and therefore as per Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled the claim interest on solarium and therefore the calculation given by the claimants is in accordance with the law and the revision Petitioner is liable to pay the same.

In the above said Larger Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), , the question of entitlement to claim interest on solarium when the same was not specifically granted by the decree was considered and the Honorable Supreme Court in that judgment answered the issue as follows:

It is well settled that an Execution Court cannot go behind the decree. If therefore, the claim for interest on solarium had been made and the same has been negative either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the Appellate Court, the Execution Court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solarium based on Sunder (supra) on the ground that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the Appellate Court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solarium 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 (supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solarium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not, we also clarify that such interest on solarium 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 (September 19,2001) and not for any prior period.

In this case, as per the decree, the learned Sub-Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession namely 17.08.1987 till the deposit for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15; per annum on the compensation which includes solarium. Therefore, the payment of interest has been provided in the decree and as per the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Sunder Vs. Union of India, , compensation includes the amount awarded u/s 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.Therefore, the learned Sub-Judge, awarded interest on solarium and therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to claim the same. Further, the question of payment of interest on solarium from 19.09.2001 as per the judgment in Sundar''s case (referred to above) they will not also arise and the award was passed after the passing of Act 67/1984.

In this case, as per the calculation of the Petitioner in E.P they have calculated the amount as per the decree and hence the lower Court has correctly allowed the application and ordered the recovery of the amount. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the lower Court and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision Petitioner is granted three months time to make the payment. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2009 is also dismissed.