(1.) This civil revision by the land-owner-petitioners springs from an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 27 August 1979, dismissing Execution Case No- 78 of 1974 in full and final satisfaction of the decree and allowing an objection under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. The petitioners are aggrieved by the method of calculation of interest on the quantum of compensation adopted by the judicial Commissioner on the compensation amount awarded in the decree of the Supreme Court (see AIR 1972 SC 1417) and in respect of 4.65 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894), (briefly 'the Act'). The Supreme Court on 25 January 1972 modified the judgment and decree of this Court passed in First Appeal Nos. 437 and 438 of 1959 and ordered that the petitioners shall be entitled to a decree in respect of the lands acquired: (a) at the rate of Rupees 1,35,000/- only per acre for 4.65 acres; (b) 5% severance and 15% solatium on the aforesaid market value viz Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre for 4.65 acres; (c) interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount so due from the date of taking possession i.e. 23 December, 1954. It also awarded proportionate cost on the difference between the amounts decreed by the High Court and that ordered by it. It further ordered that its order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. From the above it is quite clear that the Supreme Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre and then gave 5% severance plus 15% solatium. This amount was to be calculated. It comes to this: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_77_AIR(PAT)_1982Html1.htm</FRM> On the amount so due interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum has been given from the date of taking possession. The petitioners have given to this Court a calculation chart (prepared by Jiswal & Co. Chartered Accountants) which is Annexure-8. A chart of this nature was prepared as per direction of this court in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1978 (R) decided on 18 May 1979 and was filed in the executing Court. Annexure-8 is as follows:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_77_AIR(PAT)_1982Html2.htm</FRM> It may be mentioned that the above chart shows that the amount received by the petitioners from the State Government from time to time has been deducted first from interest and costs and the balance if any, has been appropriated towards the principal amount of compensation. That was the direction given in Civil Revision 311 of 1978 (R). The figures in the chart have not been challenged but the learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar has seriously challenged the method of calculation. It is to be noted that compensation went on increasing from court to court, first in the court of the Judicial Commissioner then further enhanced by the High Court and thereafter further enhanced by the Supreme Court. On 27 October, 1954, the Collector awarded Rs. 1,20,419-6-11 in respect of the first acquisition of 2.65 acres and Rs. 47,648-13-6 in respect of second acquisition of 2 acres. On 22nd August, 1959, the Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi on a reference under Section 18 of the Act maintained the market value of the acquired land awarded by the Collector but he did not grant solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act. He further awarded 5% severance and 10% potential value. On appeal the High Court awarded by its judgment dated 25 February, 1965, Rs. 90,000/- per acre for 4.65 acres, (a) 15% solatium on the market value: (b) 5% severance, and (c) 10% potential value and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of enhanced compensation from 23rd September, 1954. On 25 January, 1972. the Supreme Court modified the decree of the High Court and awarded: For 4.65 acres 15% Solatium and 5% severance Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre amounting to 1,25,550/- and 6% interest besides costs. The total amount of compensation thus being Rs. 7,53,300/-. The payments made by the judgment-debtor from time to time are: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_77_AIR(PAT)_1982Html3.htm</FRM>
(2.) Mr. L. M. Singhvi contended that his client was entitled to compensation amount as determined by the Supreme Court but the Judicial Commissioner has re-determined the matter sitting over the Supreme Court decree and also over the order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1979 (R) and has illegally dismissed the execution case as being in full and final satisfaction of the decree. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party judgment-debtor is that the decree-holders are entitled to interest only on the enhanced amount determined by the courts from time to time as provided in Section 28 of the Act It was submitted that the judgment-debtor went on paying from time to time and the same was paid only towards the principal amount and not towards interest and costs. It was contended that the judgment-debtor all along paid towards what was found due by the Collector or by the Judicial Commissioner Or by the High Court and that the decree-holder having appropriated the same towards the principal amount cannot turn back and say that payment was only towards interest. The very same contention was urged in the court below and it has been accepted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. In my opinion, this submission is not acceptable. If it is accepted, it will amount to going back upon the decree of the Supreme Court. As held by this Court in Civil Revision 311 of 1978 on 18th May, 1979, all the decrees of the Courts below merged in the decree of the Supreme Court. After that it was not the business of the Judicial Commissioner as an executing Court to go behind the decree of the Supreme Court and sit over it. He had no justification to go behind the order of this Court either, which was passed in Civil Revision 311 of 1978. As above said the Supreme Court has given a clear decree in favour of the petitioner-land owner. There is no ambiguity in it and there should have been no difficulty in calculating the amount. The Supreme Court makes the money payable from 23 September. 1954, but the Judicial Commissioner thinks as if it was due from 25 January, 1972. the date of the decree of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave interest on the amount so due, that is. on the amount calculated under clauses (a) and (b) of the decree. The Judicial Commissioner ignored thic direction and gave interest on the difference. The Supreme Court gave interest on the difference. The Supreme Court gave interest on the entire amount of compensation including 15% solatium and 5% severance but the Judicial Com missioner says that no interest can be paid on solatium or the severance under Section 28 of the Act. As regards the payment made from time to time by the State of Bihar (Judgment debtor), this court in Civil Revision 311 of 1978 (decided on 18 May, 1979) said that all such payments shall be adjusted first towards the cost and interest on the principal amount and if there is still some balance left then it will be appropriated towards the principal amount of compensation. In accordance with this direction a chart was prepared by the decree-holders and it was supplied to the Judicial Commissioner. In this Court also a similar chart prepared by the Chartered Accountant has been given. But the Judicial Commissioner ignored the calculation chart of the decree-holders and has held that the judgment-debtor deposited Rupees 1,49,763/- in excess of the amount due. He has also said in his order that the Supreme Court struck down the decree granting 5% severance. In fact, the Supreme Court has granted a decree including the 5% severance also. The Judicial Commissioner has held that the Judgement-debtor deposited Rs. 12,33,239.64 hut the decree-holders were entitled only to Rs. 9,79,288/- and hence the balance of Rs. 2,53,357.64 was excess. He, therefore, allowed the objection made by the judgment-debtor under section case (sic) in full and final satisfaction. I think, this order of the Judicial Commissioner is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction because it goes against the direction of the Supreme Court as also against the direction of this Court. I have already pointed out that the Supreme Court awarded interest on solatium as well as severance also but the Judicial Commissioner says in its order that no interest is payable to the plaintiff-decree holders on that amount. This is a clear disregard of the direction of the Supreme Court and it shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the Judicial Commissioner on the scope of the decree of the Supreme Court.
(3.) Mr. Mazumdar appearing for the State of Bihar contended that under Section 28 of the Act interest can be paid only on the excess amount of compensation. Section 28 runs thus:--