HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD Vs. MATHUNNI MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question arising in these Civil Revision Petitions, is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the decree holders are entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the judgment debtors towards the decree debt during the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, first towards the interest following the dictum in Meghraj v. Bayabai ( AIR 1970 SC 161 ) and Georgekutty v. Thomas ( 1980 KLT 641 ). The relevant facts are as follows:

(2.) Land belonging to 1st respondent in the civil revision petitions was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act on behalf of the revision petitioners. Against the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners approached the Sub Court, Ernakulam for enhancement of compensation. The Sub Court granted enhancement of compensation solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at 4%. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sub Court, the revision petitioners filed appeals before the High Court. By a common judgment dated 28-7-1986 reported in 1986 KLT 1013 , the appeals were dismissed by this court declaring at the same time that the land owners were entitled to enhanced rate of interest and solatium as provided by the amended Land Acquisition Act. The revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. By order dated 27-7-1987, the Supreme Court granted stay of the judgment of this court in the following manner: "DOTH ORDER that pending the hearing and final disposal by this court of the aforesaid Applications for stay after notice, the collection of the enhanced compensation, solatium and interest payable by the petitioner herein pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated the 28th July, 1986, of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in L.A.A.Nos, referred to above be and is hereby stayed:" The above order was later clarified on 7-12-1987 as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Our order does not grant any stay of claims of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as enhanced by the Reference court under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. What has been actually stayed is disbursement of the compensation -to the extent it has been escalated by referring to the Amending Act, 1984 by the High Court. The entire compensation not covered by our present clarification shall be paid within six weeks without demanding any security. CMP is disposed of." Pursuant to the above order the entire compensation as granted by the Sub Court, Ernakulam was deposited by the judgment debtor within the stipulated time. Thereafter following the judgment in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh ( 1989 (2) SCC 754 ) the appeals filed by the revision petitioner were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12-9-89. Later the order was modified to the effect that interest payable under S.23(1)(A) was not admissible as the award of the Collector was prior to the relevant dates referred to in S.30(l) of the Amending Act, 68 of 1984. This order was passed on 20-1-1989.

(3.) The decree holders had filed execution petitions in 1990 wherein they appropriated the amount deposited by the judgment debtor in 1989 first towards the interest and on this basis the balance due was calculated and shown along with cost. No objection was filed by the judgment debtor. On the other hand the judgment debtor made deposits in all cases by March, 1991. Decree holders filed applications under R.359 of Civil Rules of Practice for issuing cheque for the amount deposited by the judgment debtor towards decree debt. These applications were resisted by judgment debtor contending that the amount deposited in March, 1991 was in excess of what was really due towards the balance decree debt and requested for refund of the excess amount. A detailed statement was filed by the judgment debtor wherein they claimed that the amount deposited by them pursuant to the order dated 7-12-1987cannot be appropriated towards the interest first, as was proposed in the execution petition. The executing court rejected the contention and allowed the applications filed by the decree holders following AIR 1970 SC 161 and 1980 KLT 641.