MANOJBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and have prayed to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that they are entitled for interest on additional amount and solatium on additional amount deposited under sections 23, 23(1)(a) and 23(2) as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (3) GLH 446. THE petitioners have also made prayer to direct the respondents to deposit the amount of interest calculated by them at Annexure C and they may be permitted to withdraw the same on deposit.

(2.) THE petitioners are the owners of the land situated at village Khakharia, Tal: Savli, Dist: Vadodara, more particularly, described in para 2 of the petition. THE lands were required for the purpose of construction of main canal of Narmada Project, therefore, two notifications under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and thereafter, notifications under section 6(1) of the Act were published. THE Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the evidence, offered compensation to the petitioners and other land owners and accordingly, awards were passed. THE petitioners and other land owners preferred land references under section 18 of the Act for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. THE Reference Court, Vadodara by common award dated 30.11.2000 enhanced the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, but did not grant any interest on solatium as well as on the price escalation. THE respondents preferred first appeals, but the same came to be dismissed and thereby, the finding of the Reference Court was confirmed. THE respondents were directed to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks. THE petitioners did not challenge the award nor the finding of Reference Court with regard to interest over solatium as well as on the price escalation nor filed any cross objection in the first appeals preferred by the respondents. THErefore, the award passed by the Reference Court had become final. THE petitioners filed execution proceedings to enforce the award. THE respondents deposited the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Reference Court, on 3.5.2002 in the Execution Court. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for interest on market value under section 23, interest on solatium under section 23(2) and also interest on the additional amount under section 23(1)(A) of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder (supra), but such amounts were not deposited by the respondents in the pending proceedings. THErefore, the petitioners preferred application before Execution Court claiming such amounts. THE execution Court after considering the facts and evidence of the case, dismissed the application. THErefore, present petition is filed claiming the reliefs mentioned herein above.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Pandya submitted that in view of the decision of Sunder's case (supra), the petitioners were entitled for amount of interest as the execution proceedings were pending. He also submitted that at the time of deciding the reference, Sunder's case (supra) was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the Reference Court while passing award could not award such amounts in the operative part of the order, but that would not dis-entitle the petitioners from claiming such amount of interest and therefore, the Execution Court committed error in passing the impugned order.