BHASI NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P17, order dated 16.03.2011 on E.A. No. 407 of 2010 in L.A.R. No. 155 of 1999 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara is under challenge. E.A. No. 407 of 2010 is an application for cheque filed by the petitioners/decree holders/claimants. That application was resisted by the respondent-State on various grounds, the main dispute being that interest calculated and claimed by the petitioners is not allowable as respondent had deposited the amount in the trial court or. 27.03.2007. According to the respondent, from the date of that deposit petitioners are not entitled to get interest as claimed in E.A. No. 407 of 2010. Executing court accepted that contention and allowed the application for cheque for Rs. 1,43,04,75/-. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners/decree holders contended that Ext. P17, order is erroneous for various reasons. It is contended that deposit of Rs. 2,88,03,952/- on 27.3.2007 was not with notice to the petitioners and hence would not arrest running of interest. It is further contended that at any rate, that deposit was not unconditional, nor meant for payment to the petitioners. Application for cheque filed by the petitioners was resisted by the respondent. It is also submitted that conduct of respondent throughout prevented petitioners from withdrawing the amount. At any rate, the award was set aside by this Court as per Ext. P9, judgment in L.A.A. No. 465 of 2006. Thereafter, reference court has passed a revised judgment. Hence the deposit made on 27.3.2007 is of no avail. It is also argued that notwithstanding the deposit on 27.3.2007 petitioners are entitled to get interest under S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act") and as per revised decree of the Trial Court.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader for the respondent contended that assuming that on 27.3.2007 when the amount was deposited there was no notice to the petitioners, they got notice of the deposit immediately thereafter and made attempt to withdraw the amount. That attempt failed either for the reason of pendency of the appeal and cross objection or as petitioners did not furnish security. It is submitted that to avoid running of interest, respondent has deposited the amount and that would arrest running of interest. It is argued that the rule regarding appropriation of amount applicable to a deposit under R. 1 of O. XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") would not apply to an award passed by the reference court. Reliance is placed on the decision in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., 1996 2 SCC 71 .

(3.) 203.67 Ares of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired and Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was issued on 17.9.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 86,485/- per Are. There was a reference which the reference court took on file as L.A.R. No. 155 of 1999. As per Ext. P1, decree dated 24.1.2005, reference court re-fixed land value at Rs. 1,48,070/- per Are, there being an enhancement of Rs. 61,585/- per Are.