LexCHIMANLAL KUBERDAS MODI (D) BY LRS. versus GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 722 CHIMANLAL KUBERDAS MODI (D) BY LRS. v. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2004) OCTOBER 22, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 34 - Interest on solatium C - Land belonging to appellant acquired - Award passed by Land Acquisition Collector -Reference application - Reference court passed decree - In the decree, the reference court made specific reference to payment of interest on compensation but did not make any reference to payment of D interest on solatium - Appellant filed execution application - Claimed interest on solatium in the pending adjudication - Executing court permitted recovery of interest on solatium, relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Sunder case, which was delivered in the meanwhile - Order set aside by E High Court - On appeal, held: Though the execution court cannot examine the reasons so as to go behind the decree but since in the decree passed, the reference court made a specific reference to payment of interest but without any such reference to the payment of interest on solatium, it was open F to the executing court to apply the ratio of Sunder and declare that the compensation awarded includes solatium, and consequently, interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution - Interest on solatium was claimed by the appellant in the pending adjudication, therefore, the G executing court was justified to permit recovery of interest on solatium from the date of judgment in Sunder, i.e., 19.9.2001 and not for any prior period. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award in a land H 722 CHIMANLAL KUBERDAS MODI (D) BY LRS. v. GUJARAT 723 INDUS. DEV CORPN. acquisition case. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant A filed reference application under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court enhanced the market value of the land and further granted a) solatium at the rate of 30%, b) increase of 12% from the date of publication, as also c) increase in compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants were also held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% and thereafter at 15% per annum on the entire amount payable. Consequent thereto, the appellant filed an execution application for recovery of the balance amount c as awarded by the reference court. While the execution case was pending, the appellant also filed an application for payment of the amount of interest payable under Section 34 of the Act, at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter on the amount awarded by the 0 reference court under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act. The executing court issued warrant for recovery of balance amount and further interest from 1.7.2002, relying on the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the Sunder case, which was delivered in the meanwhile. Aggrieved by the order of the executing court, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court contending inter a/ia that the reference court did not award interest on the aggregate amount and therefore, E the executing Court was not justified in awarding an F amount under Section 34 of the Act. The respondent further contended that the ratio of the judgment in Sunder's Case was not applicable to the facts of the instant case because on the date when the decree was passed, interest was not payable on the amount of G solatium as also on the amount payable under Section 23 of the Act. The High Court set aside the order passed by the executing. court. In the instant appeal, the appellant submitted that H 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A since the execution of the order passed in the reference case was pending on the date when the decision in the case of Sunder was delivered, the said decision should, therefore, have been relied upon as clearly held in Gurpreet Singh's case and on the basis of that benefit of B payment of interest on solatium should have been given to the appellant. The question which, therefore, arose for consideration in the instant appeal was whether the C appellant was entitled to payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the solatium (on the compensation paid) in terms of the Sunder case and further explained in the Gurpreet Singh case. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. A bare perusal of the d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.