COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION PWD Vs. DHARMARTH COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu, on Mar. 28, 1988, in execution proceedings filed against the petitioner by the respondent to execute the award with respect to the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the petitioner/Collector. The proceedings were initiated basically before the Distt. Judge Jammu, on a reference made under S.31 of the J. and K. Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 A.D.) (for short hereinafter called as the Act), for apportionment of compensation awarded under the Act.

(2.) Brief facts out of which the present revision arises are that after the reference, under S.31 of the Act, for apportionment of compensation, was disposed of on the basis of the compromise decree which was granted by the learned District Judge, Jammu, on October 10, 1984, was amended by an order dated Mar. 20, 1985. On the basis of the said decree the respondent Dharmarth Council, decree-holder filed the execution application before the learned District Judge for the recovery of amount of Rs. 28,73,719/- including therein an amount of interest of Rs. 5,32,533/- calculated at the rate of 4% per annum as required under S.35 of the Act. On presentation of the execution petition it was not disputed that the principal amount was paid by the petitioner whereas contest was made objecting on the calculation on payment of interest as claimed by the decree-holder/respondent. The learned District Judge on hearing the respective parties agreed with the contention of the counsel for the respondent and held that on account of the failure of the Collector to deposit the interest on the calculated awarded amount with the District Judge as required under sub-sec. (2) of S.32 of the Act the interest calculated from the date of taking of possession of the acquired land by JDA i.e. June 12, 1980 has rightly been claimed and therefore directed the present petitioner to pay the amount of interest claimed. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order filed this revision petition.

(3.) The revision is strongly opposed by the respondent whereas learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously argued that in accordance with the award dt. June 12, 1980 the payment having been made including the interest thereon by the petitioner there was nothing due towards the interest which has not been considered by the learned District Judge and thus the order is illegal and without jurisdiction. My attention was drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to the fact that the compromise decree passed on Mar. 20, 1985, by learned District Judge did not in any manner direct or contemplate payment of any interest to the Dharmarth Council. It is thus submitted that there being no direction in the decree regarding the payment of interest the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and award something in execution proceeding which was not the part of the proceedings while the decree was granted.