IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.R. No. 413 of 2001. Reserved on: 3.11.2009. Date of Decision : December 15,2009. The General Manager …Petitioner. Versus Collector Land Acquisition and others. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner :Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate With Mr.Jagan Nath Advocate. For the respondent-1 : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General For respondent Nos 2 to 4,6 to 19 and 21 to 24. Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________ Kuldip Singh ,J. The petitioner in this revision petition has assailed the order dated 6.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Una holding that the respondents-decree holders are entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,02,716.77. 2. The facts in brief are that the private respondents had filed an execution petition for recovery of Rs. 3,26,791/- from petitioner and respondent No.1 by way of interest accrued on the amount of compensation awarded to them by the High Court vide award dated 17.3.1997 passed in RFA. No. 75 of 1989. The land of private respondents was acquired 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 and they filed Land Reference No. 45 of 1987 in the Court of learned District Judge, Una which was decided vide award dated 30th June, 1989. The petitioner etc. carried the matter in the High Court by filing RFA. No. 75 of 1989 which was decided on 17.3.1997. 3. In RFA. No. 75 of 1989, the High Court in CMP. No 135 of 1989 directed that the amount of the award be not released and the same be deposited in fixed deposit by the State for a period of two years with the State Co-operative Bank at Una. The petitioner and respondent No.1 in contravention of order dated 16.10.1990 in CMP.No. 135 of 1989 deposited the amount in Government Treasury at Una on 28.6.1991 without informing the private respondents. 4. The amount remained lying in the Government Treasury at Una from 28.6.1991 to 20.6.1992. The petitioner and respondent No. l did not deposit the said amount as per direction of the High Court and the private respondents in this way were deprived of interest to the extent of Rs. 1,91,106/- . The awarded amount in the award of learned District Judge was to the extent of Rs. 21,23,409/- along with interest up to 20.6.1992. The said amount was to be invested in the fixed deposit pursuant to the direction of the High Court in State Co-operative Bank at Una . In case the said amount would have been deposited in Co-operative Bank then it would have carried interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. The private respondents had received the payment of aforesaid amount on 2.6.1998. The aforesaid 3 amount kept on lying in the government treasury at Una w.e.f. 28.6.1991 to 20.6.1992. The loss of interest, thus, comes to Rs. 1,91,106/- which has been caused to the private respondents on account of wrong deposit made by the petitioner and respondent No.1 in contravention of order dated 16.10.1990. The private respondents are, as such, entitled to interest w.e.f. 28.6.1992 to 2.6.1998, the interest which they would have received had the amount been deposited in Co-operative Bank at Una. 6. The stand of the private respondents was resisted by petitioner and respondent No.1 on the ground that the awarded amount was deposited in the government treasury after obtaining permission from the then learned District Judge, Una. There was no State Co-operative Bank at Una, therefore, the amount was deposited in the treasury. The petitioner and respondent No.1 came to know about existence of the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank at Una, they filed an application before the learned District Judge for withdrawing the amount from treasury and then investing the same in fixed deposit in Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Una. 7. Learned District Judge has held that the private respondents are entitled to Rs. 1,23,085.10 on account of interest for two years for not depositing the amount at the proper place. The learned District Judge has also held that the private respondents are also entitled to interest to the extent of Rs.1,79,631.67 for about one year from 28.6.1991 to 20.6.1992. The learned District Judge has ultimately held that 4 the private respondents are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 3,02,716.77. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the respondents are entitled to Rs.3,02,716.77. In the order dated 16.10.1999 in CMP.No. 135 of 1989 in RFA.No. 68 of 1989, High Court had directed that the award amount be not released to any of the claimants in RFA. No.67 of 1989, RFA No. 69 of 1989 and RFA No. 75 of 1989. It was also directed that the same be deposited in fixed deposit by the State for a period of two years with the State Co-operative Bank at Una. There was no State Co-operative Bank at Una, therefore, the amount was deposited in the government treasury. Later on with the permission of the learned District Judge, the amount was withdrawn from treasury and it was deposited with the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Una, therefore, the petitioner is not at fault. The learned District Judge has erred in returning the finding that an amount of Rs. 3,02,716.77 is payable by the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that High Court in CMP.No. 135 of 1989 had directed that the amount be deposited for two years with the State Co-operative Bank at Una. The parties understood the direction which was nothing but to deposit the amount in a Co-operative Bank at Una. But despite that, the petitioner and 5 respondent No.1 opted to deposit the amount in the government treasury which caused loss of interest to the respondents on the award amount. The learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned order. 10. Ext.AW1/D is the application filed by respondent No.1, wherein in para-3, it has been stated that the High Court in CMP.No. 135 of 1989 in RFA.No. 68 of 1989 had directed that the amount be deposited in the fixed deposit by the State for a period of two years with the State Co- operative Bank at Una. In para-4 of the application it has been stated that the order was not available with the office, the amount was inadvertently deposited in the name of Court with the State Bank of Patiala. The prayer was made in the application that the refund voucher of the above amount be issued so that the amount could be deposited in the State Co- operative Bank at Una in fixed deposit for a period of two years so that the order of the High Court could be complied with. 11. The learned District Judge vide order dated 5.6.1992 Ext. AW1/E has ordered that the amount be deposited in the fixed deposit in Kangra Central Co-operative Bank at Una for a period of two years in the name of the State but through the Court. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were aware that the amount was to be deposited in the Co-operative Bank at Una and not in the government treasury. In the application Ext. AW1/D it has been submitted that as the order of the High Court was 6 not available, therefore, the amount was inadvertently deposited in the government treasury. The order dated 16.10.1989 Ext. AW1/C was passed in the presence of respondent No.1, the Collector Land Acquisition who was represented by Law Officer of the State. The application Ext. AW1/D was also filed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector, Land Acquisition. It can be safely inferred that the Collector Land Acquisition was having the knowledge of the order dated 16.10.1990 through the Law Officer, who represented him on 16.10.1990 in RFA No. 68 of 1989. 12. The amount was deposited in government treasury at Una on 28.6.1991 and was withdrawn on 20.6.1992 from the government treasury in pursuance of order Ext. AW1/E. 13. The private respondents in the execution petition have claimed Rs. 3,26,791/-.The private respondents at page 35 of execution file have also given the details of amount of interest claimed as follows: “1. Interest @ 11.5% from 28.6.1991 to 20.6.1992. Rs.179631.67 2. Interest @ 11.5% from 20.6.1992 To 2.6.1998. Rs.123085.10. ___________ Rs.3,02,716.77.” 14. The learned District Judge has ultimately allowed the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,02,716.77 in the impugned order as claimed by the private respondents. 7 15. The private respondents in the execution petition have raised basic grievance that the awarded amount for about one year was deposited in the government treasury instead of Co-operative Bank at Una which has caused loss of interest to them. The period of loss of interest has been identified by private respondents from 28.6.1991 to 20th June, 1992. The award amount remained in deposit in government treasury for about one year in contravention of High Court order. This has caused loss of interest to private respondents. Therefore, no fault can be found with impugned order allowing interest to private respondents from 28.6.1991 to 20.6.1992. 16. In para-2 of the execution petition, the private respondents have pleaded that the interest due upon the award has been paid by the judgment debtors from 20th June, 1992 to May, 1998 but the interest from 28th June, 1991 to 20th June 1992 has not been paid by the judgment debtors so far. However, the private respondents have again claimed interest from 20.6.1992 to 2.6.1998 amounting to Rs. 1,23,085.10. The claim of interest amounting to Rs.1,23,085.10 by the private respondents for the period 20.6.1992 to 2.6.1998 is contrary to the pleaded case of the private respondents themselves in the execution petition wherein they have pleaded that the interest due upon the award has been paid by the judgment debtors for the period 20.6.1992 to May, 1998. 8 17. The High Court on 16.10.1990 had ordered amount to be deposited for two years in fixed deposit at state Co-operative Bank at Una. The award amount was deposited at Kangra Central Co-operative Bank at Una in fixed deposit for two years though late, therefore, no fault can be found with the nature of deposit. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge has erred in allowing the interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum amounting to Rs.1,23,085.10 which amount according to private respondents is for the period 20.6.1992 to 2.6.1998. In addition the private respondents have already received the amount of interest on the award amount for the period 20.6.1992 to May, 1998, as per their pleaded case, therefore, the private respondents are not entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,23,085.10. The impugned order to this extent is not sustainable and the same is required to be modified. 18. The result of the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order dated 6.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in Execution Petition No. 61 of 1998 is modified and it is held that the private respondents are entitled to Rs. 1,79,631.67 on account of interest for the period 28.6.1991 to 20th June, 1992 only. 19. No costs. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. December 15,2009(R) 9