LexPREM NATH KAPUR AND ANOTHER ETC. versus NATIONAL FERTILIZERS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B PREM NATH KAPUR AND ANOTHER ETC. v. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS NOVEMBER 29, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND SUJATHA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 23(2) , 28 and 23(1-A) as C amended by Act 68 of 198~When does the liability of State to pay interest ceases-Interest payable when appellate court further enhances compensa- tion-Held claimant not entitled to appropriate towards costs and interests from the principal amount of compensation when the amount is clearly specified by the debtor either expressly or by implicatio1t-Section 60 of Con- D tract Act applied. E Civil Procedure Code-Order 21Rule 1-Held inconsistent with Land Acquisition Act and therefore is inapplicable thereto-Land Acquisition Act-Ss. 28, 34 and 53. Notification was issued under Section 4 acquiring large track of land including land belonging to the appellant on February S, 1973. Collector made award on October 9, 1975, determining compensation@ Rs. 10,080 per acre. Civil Court, on January 2, 1979, on reference under Section 18, confirmed the award of the Collector. In another reference by co-sharer, F District Judge by order dated 24.1.1980 enhanced the compensation. On revision by respondent Corporation, the High Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 24,000 per acre while dismissing the appeal. The Collector, on January 9, 1976 paid compensation including solatium and interest. Compensation enhanced by the High Court was deposited on January 14, 1984. The appellants claimed damages under Section 23(1)(3), G in thP. High Court, by way of revision, for solatium granted and interest on severance of the lands to the appellants. The High Court in anot~er revision further enhanced solatium and interest under Section 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A). Appellants laid execution firstly, after appropriating the amount received towards costs, then towards interest on the total compen- H sation and solatium and then for compensation in respect of the lands. 790 P.N.KAPURv. N.F.C.LLTD. ;. 791 Executing Court granted the relief. High Court in appeal set aside the A Order. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act fastens liability on the Collector to pay interest on the amount of compensation from the date B of taking possession till date of payment to which reference under Section 18 would be made. Section 28 empowers the Court to award interest "in excess of sum which the Collector did award as compensation" The Court may direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess from the date he took possession till the date of payment of such excess "into court". In case C of further enhancement of compensation on appeal under Section 54 to the extent of enhanced excess amount, the liability to pay interest subsists until it is deposited into court. [797-B-C; 799-B] 2. The right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implica- tion by the award itself as the award clearly mentions each of the items. D When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under Section 23(1-A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest. In general principles of law Section 60 of the Contract Act provides that E where the debtor has omitted to intimate as to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion. [799-D-E; 798-B] Joginder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCR 682 and Meghraj & Ors. v. Bayabaj & Ors., [1970) 1 SCR 523, distinguished. 3. The claimant is not entitled to interest on solatium by express provisions under Section 23(1). Compensation under Section 23(1), by necessary implication excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium. Equally no solatium is payable on additional amount payable under Sec- tion 23(1-A). (800-A-B] P. Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1995) 2 SCC 305, referred to. 4. By operation of Section 53 of the Act, Order 21 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, being inconsistent with the express provisions contained F G in Section 34 and Section 28 stands excluded. [800·D] H A 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals, [1995] 4 SCC 26, over ruled. 5. The power tG award additional amount under S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.