SHAH ARIF RAZA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 30th September, 1983, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Biharshariff, in Execution Case No. 1S4 of 1979 whereby he dismissed the execution petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable in the eye of law. It appears that 58.76 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 332 of Mouza Rajgir was acquired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the" Act') by the State of Bihar for which an award was prepared under Sec. 11 of the Act in the name of State of Bihar. The compensation money awarded by the Collector was Rs. 46187/ only. The claimant, however, filed an objection before the Collector for making a reference under Sec. 30 of the Act to the Civil Court, as the land acquired belonged to him and he alone was entitled to the compensation money. Accordingly, a reference was made by the Collector under Sec. 30 of the Act to the civil court which was disposed of by the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Biharshariff, in Land Acquisition Case No. 2022/56 of 1960/78. By his judgment and decree the learned Judge declared that the appellant alone was entitled to get the award -money and he directed that the award -money along with solatium and interest be paid to him within 90 days from the date of his order. The court also awarded costs to the appellant. From the decree it appears that the appellant was awarded solatium at 15% amounting to Rs. 6928.05 paise and the interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of the decree amounting to Rs. 64,446.26 paise, besides the compensation amount of Rs. 46,187/ - awarded by the Collector and the cost of that proceeding amounting to Rs. 70.55 paise. When the decretal dues, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge, were not paid, the appellant filed an execution petition before that court which was numbered as Execution Case No. 184 of 1979. The State of Bihar objected to the execution of this decree on the ground that the learned Land Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to award solatium and interest while considering a reference under Sec. 30 of the Act and as such the award or decree made by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in respect of solatium and interest could not be executed. This submission found favour with the executing court. He, further found that the execution could not proceed as the compensation money had already been deposited by the Collector on 14 -9 -60. He, therefore, dismissed the execution petition as not maintainable in the eye of law. The appellant has come up to this Court and has challenged the decision given by the learned executing court.