IMPROVEMENT TRUST JIND Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2645 to 2660 of 1989, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

(2.) The facts giving rise to Civil Revision Petition No. 2644 of 1989, are that the land, in dispute, was acquired and the award by the Collector was given on November 26, 1976. On reference, the tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation vide order dated January 10, 1985. Then the matter was taken up in the High Court where statutory benefits were given in view of the amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), vide order dated January 12, 1988. After the award was given by the tribunal, the compensation amount including interest and solatium, etc. as then awarded, was deposited by the Municipal Committee, Jind. In some cases, it has been stated at the bar that the amount was deposited in full as determined by the tribunal whereas in certain cases only part payment was made by the Municipal Committee. After the decision of the High Court, execution was sought by the claimants where the Improvement Trust - Judgment-debtor which was dissolved subsequently, and was taken over by the Municipal Committee, Jind, filed objections alleging that the decree-holders cannot claim interest on the additional amount awarded by the High Court from the period of notification under Section 4 of the Act and that of the award; the decree-holders cannot claim solatium on trees, kotha and tube-well etc. at the rate of 30 per cent and they are not entitled to any interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum from January 10, 1977 to January 10, 1978 and 15 per cent. per annum from January 10, 1978 to date which they are not entitled even according to the judgment. The said objection petition was contested on behalf of the decree-holders-claimants. The executing Court found that the decree-holders can claim interest on the additional amount awarded by the High Court from the period of notification under Section 4 of the Act and that of the award. Similarly, they could claim solatium on trees, kotha, tube-well etc. at the rate of 30 per cent. and that they can claim interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum from January 10,1977 to January 10, 1978, and at the rate of 15 per cent. from January 10, 1978 up to date. The executing Court also found that the decree-holders were not entitled to compound interest. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgment-debtor has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The first contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that 30 per cent. solatium as awarded by the High Court could not be claimed in execution on the compensation amount awarded for the trees, kotha tube-well etc. It was next contended that since the compensation amount as determined by the tribunal was paid and was duly received by the claimants, the said amount is to be adjusted towards the principal amount first and, therefore the calculations are to be made accordingly, According to the learned counsel, the amount of compensation was deposited under different heads and that being so, the amount of compensation deposited under the head of compensation is to be adjusted towards compensation as such and not towards interest, as claimed by the decree-holders. Reference was made, in this behalf, to L.I.C. of India v. Samarendra Nath, AIR 1979 Cal 243. It was also submitted that the claimants are not entitled to 15 per cent. Interest on the amount of compensation including 12 per cent. interest which according to the claimants forms part of compensation, as awarded by the High Court under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In support of the contention, reference was made to Kushal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1989 Pun LJ 262.