STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of E.F.As Nos. 1374 to 1386 of 1985 as the question involved is common in all the cases.

(2.) The Punjab State filed application under Sec. 144 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter called the Code) for restitution of the amount already realised as enhanced compensation by the respondents under the award by the Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act) which was subsequently modified by this Court in appeal. The applicant State also claimed interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount which was paid to the respondents by way of enhanced compensation earlier. The dispute between the parties was as to whether the State was entitled to the interest or not under Sec.144 of the Code. The learned District Judge took the view that the respondents could not be burdened with interest on the amount to be realised from them because no such undertaking was given by them in the security bonds furnished by them while realising the enhanced amount of compensation. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab has filed these appeals in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under the provisions of Sec.144 of the Code, the Court could make orders for the payment of interest, damages and compensation which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or order. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the learned District Judge was wrong and misconceived. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no direction in the High Court order for refunding the enhanced amount of compensation with interest, nor there was any undertaking given by the respondents in this behalf while furnishing security bonds and, therefore, in the absence of any such stipulation, no interest could be awarded under Sec.144 of the Code. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Land Acquisition Officer v. Mulji Haridas, AIR 1932 Bom 326 and Birendra Nath v. Surendra Kumar, AIR 1940 Cal 260.