FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP. BY DISTRICT MANAGER versus YARLAGADDA NARAYANA APPARAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 17-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 600 
,,.... 
' 
A 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKINADA 
REP. BY DISTRICT MANAGER 
v. 
YARLAGADDA NARAYANA APPARAO AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.5725-5726 of 2008) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
c 
s.23(2) - Solatium - Liability to pay- Held: Matter needs 
re-consideration in the light of observation in Gurpreet singh's 
case - Remitted to High Court. 
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 -
relied on. 
D 
.., . 
Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizer Corpn. 
of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 71 ; Sunder v. Union of 
India (2001) 7 SCC 211 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
E 
(1996) 2 sec 11 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2001) 1 sec 211 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2006) s sec 457 
relied on 
Para 3 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
~ '" 
5725-5726 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.3.2005 of 
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5048 of 2001 
G 
Amrendra Sharan, ASG, Sukumar Pattajosh, Arvind Kumar 
Tiwary, Rakesh K. Singh and Sudarsh Menon for the Appellant. 
+ •
B. Kanta Rao, Krishnamurthy, B. Sriram and Sudha Gupta 
for the Respondents. 
H 
600 
FOOD CORP OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP BY DIST. MANAGER 
601 
.• 
--.J 
v. YARLAGADDA NARAYANAAPPARAO & ORS. 
'. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to. the judgment of the 
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allow-
). 
ing the Civil Revision Petition Nos.5048 and 5088 of 2001, filed 
B 
by the present respondent no.1 in each case. In the civil revi-
sion petition itwas indi<'.ated that th_e proforma respondents in 
these appeals were not necessary parties. The basic dispute 
relates to liability to interest ori the amount envisaged under 
Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the c 
'Act') conveniently called "solatium". The High Court allowed the 
civil revision petitions being of the view that the decision of this 
Court in Prem Nath Kapur arid Anr. v. National Ferlilizer Corpn. 
of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996 (2) sec 71) was overruled by the 
Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder V. Union of India D 
.. 
~ 
(2001 (7) sec 211) . 
3. Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, sub-
mitted that both Prem Nath's case (supra) and Sunder's case 
(supra) were considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court 
in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457). It was E 
submitted that view in Prem Nath's case (supra)was stated to 
be correct one in the said case. Therefore, the view of the High 
Court cannot be maintained. 
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent sub-
F 
--1 
mitted that the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any 
infirmity to warrant interference. 
5. In Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) this Court observed, 
inter alia, as follows: 
"53. Thi.ls, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential G 
ratio jn Prem Nath Kapur (1996 (2) SCC 71) on 
;. * 
appropriation being at different stages is justified though 
if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-
decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same 
on the general principle of appropriation, first towards H 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
~ . 
A 
interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, 
unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards 
specified heads by the judgment-debtor while making the 
deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We, 
thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect 
B 
of appropriation. 
54. One other question also was sought to be raised and 
answered by this Bench though not referred to it. 
Considering that the question arises in various cases 
pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the 
c 
counsel to address us on that question. That question is 
whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (2001 (7) 
sec 211), the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled 
to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not 
specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an 
D 
execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, 
..,, . 
the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the 
same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary 
implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference 
Court or of the appellate court

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.