THE PUNJAB STATE Vs. JHANDU LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this Execution First Appeal is whether the Respondents are entitled to interest on the amount that was paid into the Government Treasury after the award of the Collector in a land acquisition case, after they had refused to accept the same?

(2.) IT is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the State that the entire controversy will stand resolved on the interpretation that is placed on Sections 28, 31 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The contention of the learned Counsel for the State is that as soon as the amount was deposited in the Treasury, it was a valid tender, so far as the claimants are concerned and interest will cease to run from the date of deposit or, in any case, from the date of the offer. On behalf of the Respondents, it is contended that the mode and the manner of deposit is laid down in Section 31 and if there is no deposit, which is not in terms of Section 31, it will not stop the running of interest till the amount is paid to the Respondents or is deposited as provided by the statute. It is for this reason that I have set down the three relevant provisions for facility of reference:

(3.) MR . Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Punjab State, then contended that refusal to receive the amount from the Collector would cause a cessation of the interest. If that was the intention of the legislature, Section 31(2) would not have been enacted. Section 31(2) clearly contemplates that it is on the refusal of the claimant to receive the money that the same has to be deposited in a Court to which the reference will lie. Moreover, offer of payment cannot be equated with actual payment; and Section 34 talks of actual payment before interest will cease on the amount awarded. I am. therefore, unable to accept this contention of Mr. Aggarwal as well.