COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Vs. 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 16th May, 2001, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby the objection raised by the judgment debtor to the execution has been dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, facts are that an area of land, measuring 19 kanals and 3 marlas, situated at Rawalpora, Tehsil Budgam, was acquired for public purposes, namely, construction of building for Geological Survey of India. Vide order dated 16th August, 1971, the Collector Land Acquisition, Srinagar, awarded compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 7,800/ - per kanal and solatium at the rate of 15%. Interest on the compensation amount was not awarded, as at the time of the award the possession of the land was with the land owners. Compensation as awarded was disbursed except in respect of land measuring 5 kanals and 11 marlas as there was a dispute inter so between the respondents 3 to 5 and their predecessor -in -interest with regard to the apportionment of compensation. The Collector referred the dispute to the court for adjudication of title and apportionment of compensation thereof between the interested persons. Alongwith the reference, he sent a copy of the award as well as order dated 24th May, 1972 and Revenue Deposit Refund Bill for Rs. 44,677.50 in favour of the District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar which was payable on demand either to the District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar or to any one as per his order. Rs. 44,677.50 is in regard to the compensation of 5 kanals and 11 marlas acquired for Geological Survey of India and payable to the concerned owners who shall be entitled to receive the same under law and for which reference was sent to the court for proper adjudication. The Reference Court Decided the Reference and held applicants 4 to 7 entitled to receive the compensation. The order of Reference Court was challenged before this Court. This Court set -aside the order and referred the matter again to the Reference Court for re -determination of the issues. The record shows that the trial of the reference continued till an order came to be passed on 8.11.1997 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The reference Court, while disposing of the case, also directed the Collector, Land Acquisition to pay interest to the claimants under Section 35 of the State Land Acquisition Act No. X of 1990 at the rate of 6% for the first year and after taking of possession at the rate of 10% till the amount is realised. When the order was sought to be executed against the Collector with regard to the amount of interest awarded by the Reference Court, the Collector filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that alongwith the reference a Revenue Deposit Refund Bill for an amount of Rs. 44,677.50/ - was sent to the court for payment as back as on 31st July, 1972 and so the awarding of interest at the rate of 6% and 10% is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. The Collector also stated that with the sending of Revenue Deposit Refund Bill in favour of the District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, the award stood satisfied and no execution proceedings could be carried out against the Collector. The Claimants filed reply to the objections and stated that they are entitled to the interest as the amount had not been deposited by the Collector, as provided under Section 32 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 AD) (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act'). The learned District Judge vide the impugned order held that merely by filing the Revenue Deposit Refund Bill and not depositing the actual amount, as was required under the law, the collector cannot be deemed to have discharged the liability to deposit the amount of compensation in the court at the time of making the reference. The learned District Judge has held that the Reference Court was fully justified in awarding the interest. Hence the present revision petition by the Collector.

(3.) IN answer to these submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the learned Executing Court has not committed any error in finding that the amount had not been deposited, because sending of the Revenue Deposit Refund Bill will not amount to deposit of money as envisaged under Section 32 of the Act. He further submitted that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should, be reluctant to interfere with the order of the trial court whereby discretion has been exercised in granting the interest.