STATE OF GOA Vs. DOMINGOS M.L. MERGLHAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. The short point for consideration in the above revision is as to whether a deposit of the compensation awarded by the petitioners to obtain a stay of the execution of the Award passed by the Reference Court whilst disposing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, would cease the payment of further interest in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act

(2.) Ms. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Advocate, pointed out that the original Award passed by the Reference Court was challenged by the Petitioners before this Court in First Appeal No. 91 of 1992. The award impugned therein was stayed by this Court subject to depositing the amount awarded by the impugned Award which was accordingly deposited by the Petitioners. Learned Addl. Government Advocate pointed out that the Appeal came to be disposed of by Judgment dated 03.08.1996 whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners was partly allowed and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court was reduced. Accordingly, an application was filed by the Petitioners for withdrawal of the excess amount deposited in this Court. This Court disposed of the application by an Order dated 21.11.1997 directing that the Petitioners be paid a sum of Rs. 2,87,146/- and the Respondent be paid a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/-. It was also recorded therein that if at all any interest accrued therein, the said amounts be also refunded. Thereafter, the Respondents filed an Execution Application, inter alia, contending that the amount which was paid, was in deficit as no interest in terms of Section 28 of the said Act was paid to the Petitioner. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, by the impugned Order, directed that the Respondents be paid a sum of Rs. 2,80,777.52/- as on 16.04.2008. The learned Addl. Government Advocate pointed out that in view of the said payments directed by this Court, the question of any further payments to the Respondents would not arise. Learned Counsel further submits that once the said amount was deposited in this Court by itself exonerates the Petitioners of payment of any amounts to the Respondents.

(3.) Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, disputes the contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. Learned counsel points out that admittedly the payments were not certified by the Reference Court nor the right of the Respondents to claim the amounts in terms of the Award was withdrawn by this Court whilst directing the payment of the amount to the respective parties. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event, the Respondents cannot be estopped from claiming the amount which they are otherwise entitled in terms of the Award passed in favour of the Respondents. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that no interference is called for in the impugned Order.