CWP No.1473 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1473 of 1986 Date of decision: 16.2.2009 R.P. Singh and others. ...Petitioners Versus President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) 1. On 14.1.2009, the following order was passed:- “1. This petition seeks modification of order dated 7.8.1985 passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the petitioners to interest for the period from 1978 to 1985. 2. Land of the petitioners was acquired in pursuance of notification dated 22.12.1976 under section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, ‘the 1922 Act’). The Collector gave award dated 12.8.1977 determining market value of the land. The amount was deposited by the Improvement Trust before the Tribunal to whom the reference was made under section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the 1894 Act’) read with section 54 of the 1922 Act. The same was, however, not paid to the petitioners on the understanding that there was a dispute as to who was to get the CWP No.1473 of 1986 2 amount. Though, the Tribunal returned the reference back to the Collector by observing that there was no dispute, the Collector again made the reference. Finally, the Tribunal decided the reference vide impugned order. It was observed that the claimants failed to collect the amount of compensation. The petitioners who were the claimants took the stand that they had never refused to accept the compensation and infact, no offer had been made to them. They had already reached a family settlement about the shares and decree dated 19.7.1976 had also been passed by the Civil court. The stand of the Improvement Trust was that the decree was never sent to it and in spite of notices sent, compensation was not received by the petitioners. The Tribunal held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation as per shares already worked out between them inter se but they were not entitled to interest as they had received notice from the Improvement Trust and had not collected the amount and not sent the decree to the Improvement Trust. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they could not be deprived of interest merely on the ground that the Improvement Trust had made the deposit when the petitioners had no opportunity to collect the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust submits that the Improvement Trust having made the deposit and also having served a notice on the petitioners, it could not be saddled with the liability to pay interest. Making of reference or CWP No.1473 of 1986 3 disbursing of the amount was in the purview of the Collector or the Tribunal and on parity of reasoning with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1(4) CPC, after deposit having been made, the Improvement Trust was not liable to pay interest. Even if the petitioners were wrongfully deprived of receiving of the money, it may be on account of fault of the Collector or the Tribunal and not for the fault of the Improvement Trust. No one can be prejudiced by the mistake of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, seeks time to check up the legal position. 6. Adjourned to 11.2.2009.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Collector acted as an agent of the State in making the award and was even liable to pay costs under Section 27 of the Act if award was not upheld. He further submitted that under Section 17A of the Act, as incorporated by local amendment, the land is to be given to the Trust on payment of cost of acquisition. 3. We do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Admittedly, the Trust deposited the money and the land vested in the Trust. 5. Question is whether a party which has paid the money can be saddled with liability to pay the interest? On the principle of Order 21 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure after deposit having been made, a party cannot be saddled with liability to pay interest. If the petitioner did not get the payment and land was taken, and the petitioners could have taken their CWP No.1473 of 1986 4 remedy of securing the payment. The Tribunal on facts found that the petitiones were given notice of deposit. 6. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioners to pay interest for the period the amount remained in deposit and was not collected by the petitioners. 7. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 16.2.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE