LexTHE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANR. versus JASWANT SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 525 ~ THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANR. A " v. _, JASWANT SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.5640-5641 of 2008) - } SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Interest on solatium - Executing Court granting interest c on solatium though such interest not granted by Reference Court - Revision petition dismissed by High Court - Subse- quent judgment by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Gupreet Singh's case on power of Executing Court to grant interest on solatium - Held: The High Court has to examine D 1 the position in light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case as the said decision is subsequent to the judgment of the High Court - Matter remitted to High Court. A Revision petition in terms of Article 227 of the Con- E stitution was filed before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court, holding that the Respondents-land owners were entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium. The petition was dismissed in the light of a judgment of this Court in F ~ Sunder's case in which case it was held that interest is payable on the amount of solatium as well. It was submitted by Appellant before this Court that the Reference Court had categorically observed while disposing of the land reference case that the landowners G shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount of sofa- tium and in view of such categorical finding of the Refer- 't ence Court, the Executing Court could not have gone beyond the decree. 525 H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: In a subsequent Constitution Bench judg- ment of this Court in Gurpreet Singh's case, the position relating to the power of the Executing Court was exam- 8 ined. The High Court has to examine the position in the light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case as the said decision is subsequent to the judgment of the High Court. Since the factual position has not been noted by the High Court, the High Court is directed to consider the matter in the light of what has been stated in the Gurpreet Singh's c case. [Paras 5, 6] [527-E-F; 528-G] Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 and Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 - referred to. Case Law Reference D (2001) 1 sec 211 referred to Para 2 (2006) a sec 457 referred to Para 5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5640-5641 of 2008 E From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Revi- sion Petition Nos. 260 & 261 of 2005 K.K. Khurana, A.AG., A.K. Mehta and Ajay Pal for the Ap- F pellants. G Anis Ahmed Khan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Revi- sion Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution) was filed before the High Court H questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Execut- ~ ~ T' THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION & ANR. v. 527 JASWANT SINGH & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) ing Court, i.e learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana hold- A ing that the respondents were entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium. The petition was dismissed in the light of a judgment of this Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001 (7) SCC 211). It was held in the said case that the interest is pay- > able on the amount of solatium as well. B 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the Reference Court had categorically observed as follows while disposing of several land reference cases un- der Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'): c "However, they shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium." 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Reference D Court, the Executing Court could not have gone beyond the decree. Learned counsel forthe respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the matter was squarely covered by the decision in Sunder's case (supra) and, therefore, the High Court was justified. E 5. In a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.