KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1098, 1100, 1101, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258 and 259 of 1988, as the common question is involved in all these petitions Civil Revision petitions. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 254 to 259 of 1988 have been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana, whereas the remaining revision petitions have been filed on behalf of the claimants.

(2.) Admittedly, the possession of the land acquired was taken from the claimants on June 11, 1972, whereas the award was given by the Collector on August 12, 1985. Later, on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), the amount of compensation was enhanced by the District Judge on November 7, 1986. Execution application was filed on behalf of the claimants for realising the compensation amount as decreed in their favour on a reference under section 18 of the Act. The dispute between the parties was as to whether the claimants are entitled to the interest at the rate of 15 per cent on the entire amount of compensation including 12 per cent interest granted under section 23 of the Act, or only on the market value of the land as determined in the order of the District Judge and whether the claimants are entitled to the interest till the amount was actually paid to them or up to April 13, 1987, when a part of the compensation was deposited, but at the same time an application was moved by the State Government dated May 17, 1987, that the said deposited amount be not paid to the claimants till further orders.

(3.) The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that 12 per cent interest allowed under section 23 of the Act, forms part of the compensation and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to 15 per cent interest including the said interest which forms part of the compensation and that the view taken by the executing court in this behalf was wrong and illegal. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Raghbir Singh v. Union of India. He further submitted that only a part of compensation amount was deposited on April 13, 1987, and the said amount could be adjusted first towards cost, then interest, solatium and the market price and therefore, the interest will not stop on deposit of the said amount until the whole amount is paid to the decree-holders. In support of the this contention, the learned counsel, relied upon Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, 1986 PunLJ 581