LexLAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT. COMMNR. & ANR. versus SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 833 LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4988-5047 etc. of 2010) JULY 7, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM, SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Interest on solatium - Liability to pay - Decision in **Gurpreet Singh case, that interest on solatium could be claimed only in pending C executions and not in closed executions and the execution cowt would be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in *Sunder case (19.9.2001) and not prior to that date - Interpretation of words 'closed execution' in Paragraph 54 of Gurpreet Singh** case and relevance of the date of D decision in *Sunder case - Held: If main proceeding arising from landowner's claim for enhanced compensation remains pending before civil court or at the appellate stage, it is not deemed to be closed even if the award/decree passed by collector/civil court was put to execution and payment E received by landowners in terms of award/decree - !)te stipulation that any interest on solatium can only be gefnted for period subsequent to the decision in *Sunder i.e. 19. 9. 2001, does not circumscribe the power of the court dealing with the main proceeding relating to enhancement of F compensation and it is a limitation on the power of execution court. A Constitution Bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in *Sunder case on September 19, 2001 which settled the issue regarding the liability of payment of G interest on the amount of solatium. The applicability of the - decision in *Sunder case was explained and clarified in another Constitution Bench decision in **Gurpreet Singh case. It was explained that such interest on solatium 833 H 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R. A could be claimed only in pending executions and not in "closed executions" and the execution court would be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in *Sunder (19.9.2001) and not prior to that date. 8 The issues which arose for consideration in these groups of appeals viz. Groups A, B, C and D pertain to the interpretation of the term 'closed execution' as used in paragraph 54 of decision in **Gurpreet Singh case and the relevance of the date of decision in *Sunder case. C Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: (Group A) 1. The reference to "closed executions" in Para 54 of judgment in **Gurpreet Singh does not mean cases in which the main proceeding 0 arising from the landowner's claim for enhanced compensation remains pending before the civil court or at the appellate stage. It may sometimes happen that the award of the Collector or the decree of the civil court is put to execution and payments are made in terms of the E award or the decree of the civil court and in that sense the award or the decree is satisfied. Nevertheless, an appeal against the award or the decree of the civil court may still remain pending either before the High Court or even before this Court. In appeal, the superior court may enhance the compensation which would lead to F enhancement of solatium and consequently the interest on the additional amounts of compensation and solatium. In such a situation, the landowner/claimant would be bound to go back to the execution court for realisation of the additional amounts in terms of the modified decree. G In such cases, the execution proceedings cannot be deemed to be closed and neither was it the intent of the observations in the decision in **Gurpreet Singh. The stipulation in the decision in **Gurpreet Singh that any interest on solatium can only be granted for the period H LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTI.COMMNR. & ANR. 835 v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR subsequent to September 19, 2001, the date of the· A decision in *Sunder7 it is evident that this again, was a limitation on the power of the execution court. The direction in no way circumscribes the power of the court dealing with the main proceeding relating to enhancement of the compensation. The matter can be B looked at from another angle. The appeal being the continuation of the original proceeding, in the facts of the cases in this sub-group, there can be no question of accrual of interest only after the date of the decision in *Sunder. [Para 13] (842-D-H; 843-A-G] c **Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 - held inapplicable. *Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 - referred to. D (Group
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.