IVO AGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF GOA & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1142 · Decided: 23-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1142 
A 
IVO AGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES & ORS. 
B 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF GOA & ANR. 
(CIVIL APPEAL N0.7245 OF 2003) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUIAS/TION ACT, 1894: 
c 
s. 34 read with ss. 28 and 53 - Interest on compensation 
for land acquired -Amount not collected by /and-owners and 
deposited in Revenue account of State and utilized - HELD: 
The Act requires that the amount be deposited in court- Even 
if the amount is not collected by the claimants, State cannot 
0 keep it with itself and utilize the same - In such a case, after 
a reasonable period the amount should be deposited in court 
- Interest will be payable to parties as per order of District 
Judge - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 21.r 1. 
In a land acquisition case, the amount of 
E compensation as awarded by the reference court was to 
be paid to four land owners. The cheques prepared in the 
name of two land owners were not collected as one of 
them had died in the meanwhile. The amount of the 
uncollected cheques was deposited in the revenue 
F account of the State and utilized by the State 
Government. In the execution application filed for 
recovery of the balance amount along with the interest 
accrued thereon, a dispute as to apportionment of 
compensation within the meaning of s. 31(2) of the Land 
G Acquisition Act, 1897 arose. The District Judge by order 
dated 29.10.1999 directed that the amount of uncollected 
cheques be paid to appellants 1 and 3 leaving the 
question of interest to be determined subsequently. On 
H 
1142 
IVOAGNELO SANTIMANO FERNANDES v. 
1143 
GOVERNMENT OF GOA 
23.3.2000, fresh cheques were deposited in court. The 
A 
District Judge, by order dated 18.8.2000, held that as per 
the judgment in Prem Nath Kapur's case*, the liability of 
the respondents to pay interest subsisted till they had not 
deposited the amount in court. Since the respondents 
had deposited the amount in their Revenue account and 
B 
had utilized the same, they were liable to pay interest @ 
15% on compensation. However, the High Court, in 
revision, set aside the judgment of the District Judge 
holding that the amount was paid to the appellants but 
they did not collect the same. Aggrieved, the land-owners c 
and their heirs filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Land Acquisition Act, 1897 requires 
that the interest be deposited in court, and the same has 
D 
been upheld in the case of Prem Nath Kapur*. This Court 
also held that by operation of s. 53 of the Act, Order 21, 
r. 1 CPC, being inconsistent with the express provisions 
contained in ss. 34 and 28 of the Act, stood excluded. 
[para 18-19) [1150-B] 
· 
E 
*Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. v. National Fertilizers 
Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. 1995 ( 5 ) Suppl. SCR 
790 = (1996) 2 sec 71 - relied on 
1.2 In the instant case, the respondents did not F 
deposit the amount in court, but in their Revenue account 
and utilized the same. Even if the respondent State does 
pay the compensation to the claimants directly, and the 
same is not collected, it cannot then keep the said 
money with itself and utilize the same. In such cases, 
G .:·· 
after a reasonable period, if the claimants do not come 
forward to collect compensation, then it should be 
deposited in court by the State. Allowing the State to keep · 
the compensation with itself and utilizing it cannot 
H 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A possibly be permitted being contrary to the provisions of 
the Act and the law laid down in Prem Nath Kapur. The 
judgment of the High Court is clearly erroneous and is 
set side. Accordingly, interest will be payable to the 
parties as per the order of the District Judge dated 
s 18.8.2000. [para 19-20) (1150-C-F] 
Case Law Reference: 
1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 790 relied on 
para 9 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7245 of 2003. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.08.2002 of the High 
Court of Bombay at Goa in Civil Revision Application No. 44 
of 2001. 
M.S. Ganesh, Nikhil Nayyar, K. Seshachary, Swarpnil 
Verma, T.V.S. Raghzavendra Sreyas for the Appellants. 
Niranjana Singh, Prema Singh for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GANGULY, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 
2. A notification dated 6.09.1984 under Section 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), was issued 
F for acquisition of land at Sanguem, Goa, for the construction 
of 

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