IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 344 of 1996(C) -------------------------- LAR.98/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: -------------------------- K.M.JANAKI W/O CHANDUKUTTY, MALLIKA NILAYAM PO. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) K.S.H.BOARD, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 344 of 1996 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The only issue which survives for consideration in this appeal preferred by the claimant is as to, which method of appropriation should be made when the judgment debtor makes payment or deposit of the decree debt in land acquisition case in instalments. The issue is no longer res integra. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, approving earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Premnath Kapur & another v. National Fertilizers Corpn of India Ltd. & others (1996) 2 SCC 71 has in Gurpreet Sigh v. Union of India (2006)8 SCC 457 finally held that unless the judgment debtor has specified at the time of making part payments or deposits that the deposits or payments are made towards a particular component of the decree debt, it is the general principles enshrined in Sections 59 to LAA. No. 344/96 - 2 - 61 of the Contract Act which governs the issue. In other words, unless the judgment debtor/Government is able to convince the execution court that at the time when the initial deposits or payments were made on 28-4-1987 (Rs.49,352/-) and on 26-11-1991 (Rs.3,20,943/-) it was clearly specified that these amounts were being paid or deposited towards any particular component of the land acquisition decree debt, the appropriation shall be in accordance with the principles enshrined in Sections 59 to 61, i.e., first towards cost, then towards interest and ultimately towards principal. In other words, the appropriation should be towards non-interest bearing components of the decree debt first and then only towards the interest bearing components. For want of records pertaining to the execution proceedings we are unable to decide the issue finally. We direct the execution court to consider the issue as to which is the mode of appropriation to be followed in this particular case by referring to LAA. No. 344/96 - 3 - documents if any produced by the Government as to the indications or directions given by the Government to the decree holder while the Government made deposits or payments of the amounts indicated above. In other words, the question as to which among the two statements filed by the claimant and the judgment debtor before the execution court is correct will be decided by the execution court following the correct method of appropriation to be adopted in this case. Since the execution proceedings have been pending for quite a long time and the decree holder is suffering due to delay, we direct the execution court to give top priority to the matter and ensure that a decision is taken at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. Both sides will enter appearance before the execution court on 23-11-2009. If necessary both sides can file further statements. 2. We clarify that on the total enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,976/- consisting of Rs.3,25,500/- and Rs.476/- towards value LAA. No. 344/96 - 4 - of improvements, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% under section 23(2); the additional amount under section 23(1A) at 12% from 31/01/1981 till 29/07/1983 (quantified as Rs.96,989/-). It is also clarified that on the total enhanced compensation as indicated above the appellant will also be eligible for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 02/08/83 to 01/08/84 and thereafter at the rate of 15%. It is further clarified that the total enhanced compensation indicated by us is inclusive of solatium and which means that on the solatium component of the compensation also, the appellant will be entitled for interest. Appeal is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/- LAA. No. 344/96 - 5 - PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. LAA. No. 344 of 1996 JUDGMENT 3rd November, 2009