UNION OF INDI Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court, whereby not only the objection petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, but an application U/s 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that the land owned by the respondents was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The land was admittedly derequisitioned on 25.2.1987. Landowners filed a suit for the recovery of compensation on account of temporary requisitioning of land. The case of the plaintiffs was that they have not been paid compensation since March, 1971 despite repeated requests. They were thus entitled to compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1971 till February 25, 1987 with future interest. Plaintiffs while claiming the amount of compensation also claimed solatium at the rate of 30% besides interest etc. Defendants- petitioners were proceeded ex-parte and ultimately the suit was decreed ex- parte vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.1993. It was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the period Kharif 1971 to 1987 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per bigha per year, which came to Rs. 1550/- per bigha. Besides this the plaintiffs were also granted the interest at the rate of 15% per annum in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. Union of India and another, 1974 P.L.R. 658, the interest so calculated was worked out to Rs. 2032/- per bigha for the entire period and solatium at the rate of 30% was also held admissible in view of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. The solatium was thus worked out on Rs. 1550/- and the plaintiffs were held to be entitled to Rs. 465/- per bigha. Thus according to the trial court solatium, interest and compensation for the period 1971 to 1987 worked out to Rs. 4047.50 per bigha. The plaintiffs were also granted interest from 10.3.1987 till the date of the filing of the suit at the rate of 12% per annum with future interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of the suit till realisation. The defendants on coming to know of the ex-parte proceedings from the bank and on the advice of the counsel filed a writ petition in this court on 3.1.1994, but the same was finally dismissed on 8.8.1994 on the ground that the same was not maintainable as in such cases appropriate forum was available to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The Union of India thus filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Patiala, with an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge dismissed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act by order dated 5.4.1995 and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Judge, Union of India took the matter in revision to this court, but the same was dismissed on 31.8.1995 by N.K. Kapoor, J. Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court was dismissed on 11.7.1996 and the review thereof was also dismissed on 11.2.1997.

(3.) AT this stage it deserves to be noticed that a suit of similar nature and, for the period in question in this case, was filed by Amar Singh and others and the same was contested by the Union of India and ultimately the same was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 6.9.1996. The judgment in that suit has been placed on record by moving a civil misc. It was held that the landowners are not entitled to the arrears of rent or solatium and that the suit was barred by limitation.