Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 12th, 2011 Naseeb Kaur and another ... Petitioners Versus Central Government of India and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Naseeb Kaur and Pritam Singh, decree holders, have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modifying the order dated 13.3.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which calculation of the amount due to the decree holders from the judgment debtors is claimed to have been wrongly made. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this revision petition are that the decree holders owned 28 kanals 17 marlas of land in village Meerpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa, for acquisition of which, notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 2 .. 1894 (for short, “the Act”) on 13.2.1990 and the Land Acquisition Collector made the award on 12.6.1990. On request of decree holders, a reference was made to the court and learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide award dated 5.11.1999 enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,80,000/- per acre in the case of land of the the decree holders. Learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa has made the following chart in the impugned order to show the position of amount due, amount paid and the amount left unpaid. 1. Total acquired land of the DH 28 kanals 17 marlas Balance amount 2. Enhanced amount awarded by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, for each marlas of land (beyond 200 feet radius) under Section 23(1) of the Act Rs.2062.50 per marla 3. Solatium @ 30% under section 23(2) of the Act on Rs.2062.50 Rs. 618.75 per marla 4 Additional compensation u/s 23(1-A) of the Act Rs.82.50 per marla 5. Total compensation under section 23(1) 23(2) & 23(1-a) i.e. (2+3+4) Rs.2763.75 per marla 6. Compensation payable for the land measuring 577 marlas 577x2763.75 Rs.15,94,683.75 Rs.15,94,683.75 7. 9% interest under section 28 on compensation (w.e.f. 12.6.1990 to 12.6.1991) on Rs. 15,94,683.75) Rs.1,43,521.53 Rs.1,43,521.53 8. 15% interest under section on compensation of Rs. 15,94,683.75 from 12.6.1991 to 15.6.2006 (15 years) Rs.33,88,038.43 Rs.33,88,038.43 8-A Total amount payable as on 15.6.2006 (6+7+8) Rs.53,26,243.71 Rs.53,26,243.71 Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 3 .. 9. Principal amount paid on 15.6.2006 Rs.15,93,943.00 Rs.15,93,943.00 10. Balance Principal amount as on 15.6.2006 (6-9) Rs.740.00 Rs.740.00 11 Interest paid on 15.6.2006 Rs.27,68,041.00 Rs.27,68,041.00 12. Balance interest due on 15.6.2006 (7+8=11) Rs.963518-00 Rs.963518-00 It is mentioned in this chart that an amount of Rs.15,94,683.75 was the amount of compensation payable on account of the enhancement, on which the interest calculated at 9% under section 28 of the Act from 12.6.1990 to 12.6.1991 was found at Rs.1,43,521.53 and interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from 12.6.1991 to 15.6.2006, came to Rs.33,88,038.43. So, the total amount payable as on 15.6.2006 was found in a sum of Rs.53,26,243.71. The payment of Rs.15,93.943/- is stated to have been towards the principal amount leaving a balance of Rs.740/- from the principal amount as on 15.6.2006 and a sum of Rs.27,68,041/- is said to have been paid towards interest on that date leaving a balance of Rs. 9,63,518/- from interest on the said date. Learned trial court has mentioned in the impugned order that since the amount left unpaid from the principal amount is Rs.740/-, so, the same would carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from 15.6.2006 till realization and the amount left from interest would not earn any such interest. I have heard Mr. J.S.Thind, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ram Chander, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Kunal Garg, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2. and have gone through the record carefully. Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 4 .. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amount due as on 15.6.2006 was in a sum of Rs. 53,26,243.71 and the whole of the amount was not being paid on that date. According to him, there was no specification in this regard in the decree under execution and, therefore, the decree holders were having the option to appropriate the amount first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal amount leaving a balance from the principal amount which would earn further interest. According to him, the judgment debtors cannot dictate the terms as to appropriation of the amount paid by it. He has cited before me a decision of a Constitution Bench of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457, wherein it is laid down that if the amount paid falls short of the amount due, the decree holder may be entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal amount due under the decree. He has, therefore, submitted that learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa had appreciated the facts in a wrong manner and has wrongly held that the amount of Rs.740/- alone would earn interest after 15.6.2006. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Union of India has submitted on the other hand that it is for the judgment debtors to specify the debt to which he wants the amount paid to be appropriated. According to him, the Central Government while making the payment claimed the amount in a sum of Rs.15,93,943/- to be appropriated towards the principal amount and a sum of Rs.27,68,041/- towards the interest. According to him, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa has Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 5 .. rightly taken the amounts to have been appropriated towards principal and interest and has rightly held that the amount of Rs.740/- alone, being the unpaid principal amount, shall carry interest after 15.6.2006. He has cited before me a case reported as Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. etc. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 71. The decision in Prem Nath Kapur's case (supra) has been considered by Hon`ble Constitution bench in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) and it is laid down that in case the amount paid by the judgment debtor falls short, the decree holder may be entitled to apply rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest, then towards the costs and then towards principal amount due under the decree. A perusal of Prem Nath Kapur's case (supra) shows that it deals with the situation where there were more than one debts and the judgment debtor in that case would be at liberty to specify the debt to which he wanted the amount paid to be appropriated. Here the entire amount as principal and interest has been calculated and as there is no direction in this regard in the award of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa and as the amount paid fell short of the amount due from the judgment debtors to the decree holders, the decree holders were at liberty to appropriate the amount first towards the interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal amount. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the question that arises in this revision petition can be answered on the basis of the ratio of Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) by holding that the amount paid on 15.6.2006 would first be appropriated towards interest and then towards Civil Revision No. 6722 of 2010 6 .. the principal amount, there being no amount recoverable as costs and the amount that would be left unpaid, would be from the principal amount which would carry further interest at the rate of 15% per annum. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside directing learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa to calculate the amount due in the aforesaid manner and to take steps to get the same recovered for the decree holders. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 12th, 2011 som