LexGURPREET SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A , GURPREET SINGH v. . UNION OF INDIA · OCTOBER 19,2006 [Y.K. SABHAR WAL, CJI, K.G. BA LA KRISHNAN, S.H. KAPADIA, C.K. THAKKER AND P.K; BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] .. · Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 23(/), 23(/A), 28 and 34 (is · C amended byAct 68 of 198~): · . • ' · " . . Compensation-Rule of appropriation-Applicability of-To the cases of award under the Act-In Prem Nath Kapur's case held that liability to pay·. interest was only on the excess amount of compensation and rule of appropriation under Order XX/ Rule I CPC stood excluded by Section 28 D and 34 of the Act-Validity of the judgment on the question of appropriation referred to Constitution Bench-Held: The ratio in Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of appropriation is appraved-Decree holder not entitled to reopen · the entire transaction to claim a reappropriation . of the amounts already received and appropriated at that particular stage merely because appellate court has enhanced the compensation-Appropriation would be at different E stages-Award. of interest is confined only _to the excess compensation awarded-But if there is any shortfall at any stage, rule of appropriation can be applied in respect of that excess amount-Doctrine of merger not applicable in such case-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder XX/ Rule I. . .. F Interest on solarium-Whether payable-By Execution Court- Constitution Bench of Supreme Court holding that. compensation includes solatiu~Held: 'if claim for interest on solarium is negated by the court i~ :. reference or in ·appeal, 'execiition COZfrl 'cannot grant the same as it cannot go behind the decre~But if such claim is not negated.. the same can be granted by execution court by applying ratio of Constitution Bench judgment- G Such interest on solarium can be granted only in pending execution permitting its recovery from the date of judgment of Constitution Bench-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 141 and 142 . . .. Doctrines: H 422 GURPREET SINGH v. U.0.1. 423 Rule of appropriation-Explained A Doctrine of merger-Applicability of Words and Phrases-'Appropriation'-Meaning of The questions for consideration in the present appeals are whether the B rule of appropriation in execution of money decrees is the same in the case of an award decree under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as in the case of money decree, or the provisions of Land Acquisition Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68of1984) make that rule inapplicable or not wholly applicable; and that whether interest can be claimed on solatium in execution, though not specifically granted by the decree. C In Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors., (1995) Suppl. 5 SCR 790, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had held that the expression 'compensation' under Section 23(1) of the Act as amended by Act 68of1984 read in the context of Section D 28 or 34 thereof, by necessary implication excludes solatium or on the additional amount under Section 23 (IA) and liability to pay interest was only on the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23 (l ); and that normal rule of appropriation contained in Order XXI Rule l CPC relating to execution of decrees for recovery of money, stands excluded by Sections 28 and 34 of the Act in execution of award of decrees of the Act. The E Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India, [20011 Suppl 3 SCR 176 overruled the view as regards the content of the expression 'compensation' occurring in Section 23 (1) and Section 28 of the Act, but the aspect of mode of appropriation of the amount due under an award decree was not dealt with. When the question as regards the rule of appropriation was raised in this case before 3 Judges Bench, the same was referred to Constitution Bench to consider whether the judgment in Prem Nath Kapur would survive the reasoning in Sunder's case. Answering the questions, the Court HELD: l.l. A claimant or decree holder who has received the entire F G a mount awarded by the reference court or who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so awarded, cannot claim interest on the amount he has already received merely because the appellate court has enhanced the compensation H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A and has made payable additional compensation. Such a blanket re-opening of the transaction is not warranted even in respect of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.