IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI. Ex. No. [PRECEDENT] ORDER
12.01.2016
1. An execution petition filed for payment of interest on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of [ENTITY]'s case as per decree dated 21.05.1999. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue regarding the interest on 30% solatium and 12% in view of [ACT] vide judgment dated 05.08.2010 in [CASE NUMBER] titled '[ENTITY] vs. UOI'. It is further stated that Decree Holder has received the payment except the interest on solatium and additional amount. It is further stated that the enhanced compensation under the decree dated 21.05.1999 in [CASE NUMBER] was received through execution. The present execution petition is for payment of interest part on solatium and 12% additional amount. It is prayed that JD may kindly be directed to deposit the decreetal amount with the Hon'ble Court as detailed in the statement filed by Decree Holder and further issue warrant of attachment on current amount of LAC maintained with SBI, District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi and /or other properties of JD may also be attached in the interest of justice.
Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] 1/9
2. During execution proceedings, a calculation report submitted by [ENTITY] on the interest of solatium and additional amount. The Decree Holder objected the same and filed objections. In the objections, it is stated that as per various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest @ 9% and 15% on solatium and 12% additional amount is payable to Decree Holders on the compensation awarded by Collector, the Ld. ADJ in Reference under [SECTION] and Hon'ble High Court in RFA. However, LAC has unnecessarily raised objections on this entitlement of Decree Holders. The LAC has wrongfully misrepresented before this Court the calculation of the actual amount payable to Decree Holder.
3. Decree Holders taken the objections that LAC/Judgment Debtor has raised baseless and bogus objections and not followed the judgments of '[PRECEDENT]' decided on 13.08.2010; [CASE NUMBER], titled as "[ENTITY] Vs. Union of India" decided on 05.08.2010; [ENTITY] vs. Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211; [ENTITY] vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 457; [ENTITY] & Ors. vs. Special LAC & Ors., 2007 (2) SCC 341; [PRECEDENT].
4. It is stated that LAC/Judgment Debtor has caused unnecessary harassment, torture and embarrassment. The LAC/ Judgment Debtor has adopted tactics to deprive the poor farmers of their entitlement to receive due compensation. It is further stated that [ENTITY] has made wrong calculation which is illogical and committed serious Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] 2/9 lapses. It is stated that Decree Holders are entitled to interest in question from the date of award by the Collector, enhancement by the Reference Court and thereafter by Hon'ble High Court in the appeal.
5. The Decree Holders prayed that [ENTITY] be directed to submit correct and proper report of the accrued amount which is payable to Decree Holders on 30% solatium and 12% additional amount on the compensation awarded by Collector, Reference Court and Hon'ble High Court.
6. The Judgment Debtor filed detailed written submissions to the objections in connected case titled '[PRECEDENT].
7. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the Decree Holder, Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the Judgment Debtor and perused the record.
8. In order to appreciate respective contentions of parties, it is necessary to go through the record. It is admitted case of the Decree Holder that the award announced in way back in 1986-87 and as per award the payment was received by Decree Holder. Thereafter, Decree Holder filed reference under [SECTION] of the [ACT] before the court of Ld. ADJ and the same was decided by Ld. ADJ. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was decided in the year 1999. The present execution petition was filed by Decree Holder as per judgment and decree of Hon'ble High Court, in Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] which the enhanced amount along with other components as per [ENTITY]'s judgment were claimed.
9. Now coming to the present execution. The genesis of this execution petition lies with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] (Supra), the SLP decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the aggrieved one of the Decree Holder approaches the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dismissal of writ petition filed before the High Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment of [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) and Land Acquisition Officer's case (Supra), held as under:
"7. In this case, the High Court, in its judgment dated 02.11.1998 and 01.12.1998, did not expressly or impliedly reject the claim for interest on solatium amount. As on date, 12 years have not expired from the date of final disposal of the matters on 20.01.2004 by this Court, dismissing the appeal of the Union of India against the judgments of the High Court. The full satisfaction of the award/decree has not been entered by the Executing Court. On the principle laid down by this Court, we are of the view that appellants will be entitled to interest on the amount of solatium. In fact, filing of the writ petition was misconceived and unnecessary. Even without filing the writ petition the appellants could have filed an Execution claiming the interest on solatium also."
Ex. No. [PRECEDENT]
10. Now the controversy emerges is that whether Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of solatium from the Era of Collector's award and Reference Award or appeal in High Court or only on High Court's enhanced amount. In order to appreciate, it is essential that the fundamental point has to be kept in mind that when the present award kept by LAC and reference under [SECTION] of the Act answered by the Ld. ADJ Court, at that point of time, judgment of '[PRECEDENT] was in force. Judgment of '[ENTITY] vs. Union of India', 2001 (7) SCC 211, came into force even after the decision of the High Court in respective appeals i.e. after September, 2001. The interpretation of [ENTITY]'s Case (Supra), judgment laid down in the case of [ENTITY]'s (Supra). Hence, the entitlement of any compensation of payable amount has to be calculated as per [ENTITY]'s (Supra) judgment. In [ENTITY]'s (Supra) case, it has been discussed the interpretation the scheme of [ACT] regarding payment to the farmers. In para 32, 33, 34 and 35, held as under:
"32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed. Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by [SECTION], [SECTION] and the interest contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the Collector in terms of [SECTION] of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in deposit as contemplated, since the Collector has Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] to pay or deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may have to be made up at that stage and the principle of appropriation may apply, though, it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that stage. On the deposit by the Collector under [SECTION] of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the amount with or without protest.
33. The second stage occurs on a reference under [SECTION] of the Act. When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in [SECTION] of the Act and costs in terms of [SECTION]. The Collector has the duty to deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made under and after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of the enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that stage in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference.
34. The third stage occurs, when in appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation as indicated already. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation when [SECTION] is applied.
The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in addition to the amount awarded Ex. No. [PRECEDENT] by the Reference Court if it had not already been deposited.
35. The fourth stage may be when the Supreme Court enhances the compensation and at that stage too, the same rule would apply."
Further in para 54 of the judgment, it is held as under:
"54. One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in [ENTITY], the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution through it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on [ENTITY] on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] 7/9 court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of [ENTITY] and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in [ENTITY] (19-9-2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question."
11. Now applying the above proposition of law in the present circumstance, the Decree Holder is now entitled for the payment for the third stage. They cannot revert back to the stage of Collector or Reference Court especially when the case of [ENTITY]'s (Supra) was not applicable. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court in appeal was silent on the point of interest on the amount of solatium and now as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), they are entitled for amount of solatium, which is emerging out from the High Court judgment. Secondly, the Decree Holders have already received all the due amount on the date of receiving of the compensation amount along with different components as per law was enforced at that relevant time period. It is Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] pertinent to mention here that no execution petition pending on behalf of Decree Holder for payment as per award of LAC or judgment of Reference Court. Furthermore, now 12 years have elapsed, therefore, enforcement of payment on the basis of award of LAC/Collector or Reference Court under [SECTION] of the Act is barred by limitation. Therefore, Decree Holders are not entitled to any interest on the amount of solatium on the award of LAC/Collector or Reference answered by the court of Ld. Additional District Judge. The Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of solatium only as per judgment of High Court on the enhanced amount. In case Decree Holder has received interest on solatium, then no interest is payable as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra). The execution petition and the objections are decided accordingly.
Announced in the open court today the 12th January, 2016.
([ENTITY]) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 12.01.2016 Ex. No. 332/10 [PRECEDENT] 9/9