LexABHAY SINGH SURANA & ORS versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~
ABHA Y SINGH SURANA & ORS
A
v.
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & ORS.
AUGUST 19, 1987
.+·
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
B
\r
Interest on the amount awarded by Arbitrator for requisition of
premises under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property
Act, 1~52-Entitlement of.
-
'-{
This appeal by special leave was commed solely to the question of c
entitlement of interest on the amount awarded by tbe Arbitrator for the
requisition of the premises under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court,
"'(
D
HELD: The principles U!lllD which the compensation on Ibis
aspect is payable are by now well-settled. This Court reiterated the
principles in Satinder Singh and Ors. v. Amrao Singh and Ors., [1961]
3 SCR 676 at 694; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. Life lnsu-
\..
ranee Corporation of India- [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 971 at 992 and
Hirachand Kothari (dead) through Lrs."v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., E
~,
[1985] Suppl. I SCR 644 at 655. [1046F; IOOC]
1
In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the Court was of the ophtion
that the appellants herein were entitled to the interest for the period
from March 1975 to the 31st July, 1987, when the principal amount of
compensation had been paid and/or when the premises in question had F
been de-requisitioned and handed back to the owner, on the amount
awarded. The Court was of the opinion that for the period from March
7, 1975 to February 28, 1985 being the date on which the judgment of
the High Court was pronounced in this case, the appellants were en-
\
titled to the interest on the amount awarded at the rate of 6 per cent per
annum, and for the period from August 8, 1985 to July 31, 1987-for (}
that period only-at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The interest
would be payable only on the balance amount which remained to be
paid to the appellants i.e. the amount due minus what bad been paid
from the respective dates. The Court directed that the amount be paid
by the respondents within three months from the date of this judgment,
and that in case there was any difficulty in calculating the amount, the H
1045
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
~
A
parties would be at liberty to apply to the High Court. [1048C-H]
Satinder Singh & Ors. v. Amrao Singh & Ors., [1961] 3 S.C.R.
676; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. Life Insurance Corpora-
tion of India, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 971 at 992; Hirachand Kothari
(dead) through Lrs. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1985] Supp. 1 +
B
S.C.R. 644 and Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co." Ltd. v. New Burnswick
Electric Power Commission, A.I.R. 1928 Privy Council 287, referred
v
to.
c
D
E
F
G
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal l'{o. 859
of 1987.
From the Judgment and order dated 8.8. 1985 of the Calcutta
High Court in Appeal No. 329 of 1982.
Shankar Ghosh and L.P. Aggarwal for the Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan, B. Parthasarhti and C. V. Sobba Rao for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is
confined solely to the question of interest. In other words, the entitle-
ment of interest on the amount awarded by Arbitrator for the requisi-
tion of the premises under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act 1952 is the issue. The principles upon which
the compensation on this aspect is payable are by now well settled. In
Satinder Singh & Ors. v. Amrao Singh & Ors., [1961] 3 SCR 676 this
Court reiterated the principles at page 694 of the report as follows:
"In Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Burnswick
Electric Power Commission [ 1928] A.C. 429 it was held by
y
y
.ir'
r
the Privy Council that "upon the expropriation of land
under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private
f
gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled
to interest upon the principal sum awarded from the date
when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows
a contrary intention."' Dealing with the argument that the
expropriation with which the Privy Council was concerned
was not effected for private gain, but for the good of the
public at large, it observed "but for all that, the owner is
-
.....
~-
A.S. SURANA v. COMMUNICATION MINISTRY [MUKHARJI, J.}
1047
deprived of his property in this case as much as in the
other, and the rule has long been accepted in the interprExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.