Union of India (UOI) vs The Special Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Competent Authority and Others

S.C. Malte, J.—All these three revisions, No. 3495/1996, 3541/1996 and 3542/1996 are being disposed of by this common order as these pertain identical question in respect of the recovery of the amount under the award. As per the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, certain property was acquired and award was passed by the Additional District Judge exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the said Act. Now in the course of execution of that award, certain property belonging to the Union of India (the acquiring body) was sought to be attached and sold. Therefore, the Union of India filed these revisions. One of the grounds raised was that the amount under the award is liable to be paid by the competent authority. The term ''competent authority'' has been defined in Section 2 of the said Act, which means a person or authority authorised by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette. Initially, it was represented to the Court that no such competent authority was appointed. However, after getting proper instructions, I was informed that such a competent authority was appointed. Moreover, the present respondent 2 was appointed as competent authority. In other words, an authority has been already in existence with a responsibility of paying the compensation as per the award. Thus, the position is that, upon passing award and appointment of a competent authority to function under the said Act for the purpose of payment, the amount in question was outstanding. Therefore, the execution was sought to recover the amount.

While the revision was pending before this Court by way of interim order, I directed that the amount should be deposited in the Court. Pursuant to that, amount is deposited. The counsel for the respondents, however, claim that the interest accrued meanwhile has not been deposited. May it be, that is a question to be sorted out by the executing court. It was also submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that the payment of interest and solatium was stayed. If that be the position, that should be properly placed before the executing Court for determination.

After depositing the amount, now it was contended that the amount should not be disbursed to the claimants. That submission does not appeal to me because, admittedly, in the regular first appeal filed against the award, this Court had not granted any stay to the recovery of the amount in question.

The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present Court before whom the execution proceedings are pending was not an authority competent to recover the amount and disburse it. In that respect, certain provision under the Rules framed under the said Act should be taken into consideration. Rule 10-A provides that if the money is deposited in the Court, the Court would deal with it in the manner laid down in Sections 32 and 33 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The term ''Court'' is defined under Rule 2-aa which means a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district in which the property requisitioned or acquired is situated. Obviously, the district Court would be the principal civil Court having original jurisdiction in the district. I, therefore, hold that the present court which is the Court of Additional District Judge, is the court presently discharging the function of District Court under the said Act, and he has to take care of the amount deposited as per the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petition disposed of accordingly.