MEENAKSHIAMMA CHELLAMMA Vs. SATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mode of appropriation of payment made towards a Land Acquisition Award in execution, is in question. In the Land Acquisition Award, the mode of appropriation has not been mentioned. In case of shortfall in deposit of the award amount, how the amount deposited has to be appropriated, is the short question to be decided here.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Gurupreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006 KHC 1608 : 2006 (8) SCC 457 : 2008 (1) KLJ 463 : 2007 (2) CHN 40 which was rendered in a land acquisition matter. It was held that, if at a particular award stage there is a shortfall in the deposit made by the State against the award decreed at that stage, the decree - holder can seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount as per the general principles of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs.

(3.) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has pointed out that the decision rendered by a three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur and Another v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, 1996 KHC 1460 : 1996 (2) SCC 71 : JT 1995 (9) SC 23 : 1995 (7) SCALE 109 : 1995 Supp (5) SCR 790 has not been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurupreet Singh (supra), whereas the same was only clarified and slight modifications were made. In Gurupreet Singh (supra) it was held that when a payment was appropriated towards part of the principal, the interest would cease from the date on which such amount received by the decree - holder towards the principal amount. It was also held that by way of an interim order, the Court could indicate as to how the deposited amount has to be appropriated. In case of any such direction, that direction would prevail and appropriation could only be made on the basis of that direction. Here, in this case, the respondents have no case that there was any such direction passed by the Court with regard to the mode of appropriation. Further, in Gurupreet Singh (supra), it was held in paragraph 53: