Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : January 27, 2011 Pankaj Rai and another ... Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Avinash, Advocate for Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Written statement filed in court on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, is taken on record. The much stressed contention by counsel for the petitioners is that any amount whatsoever paid by the respondents would first be adjusted against the interest, then costs if awarded and at third stage towards the principal amount, but the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court laid down the law in case Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457, while observing as under:- “32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] 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 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and the interest contemplated by Section 34 of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the Collector in terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in deposit is contemplated, since the Collector has 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 31 of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without protest. 33. The second stage occurs on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. 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, Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] 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 enhances the compensation as indicated already. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, when Section 28 is applied. The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in addition to the amount awarded 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 para No.49 of the judgment refers to the appropriation of the payment, which reads as under:- “49. Though, a decree-holder may have the right to appropriate the payments made by the judgment-debtor, it could only be as provided in the decree if there is provision in that behalf in the decree or, as contemplated by Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code as explained by us above. The Code or the general rules do not contemplate payment of further interest by a judgment-debtor on the portion of the principal he has already paid. His obligation is only to pay interest on the balance principal remaining unpaid as adjudged either by the court of first instance or in the court of appeal. On the pretext that the amount adjudged by the appellate court is the real amount due, Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] the decree-holder cannot claim interest on that part of the principal already paid to him. Of course, as indicated, out of what is paid he can adjust the interest and costs first and the balance towards the principal, if there is a shortfall in deposit. But, beyond that, the decree-holder cannot seek to reopen the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole amount and seek a reappropriation as a whole in the light of the appellate decree. The Apex Court had earlier also took the view in Prem Nath Kapur and another vs. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. and others, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 71 that when an award/ decree is passed specifying the amounts under different heads like the amount under Section 23(1), the amount under Section 23(2), the amount under Section 23(1-A) and the interest under Section 28 and the judgment-debtor makes a deposit of specified sums under these different heads, it will amount to the judgment-debtor intimating the decree-holder as to how the sum deposited is to be applied in discharge of the obligation of the judgment-debtor. Once a decree-holder receives the payment of the sums thus deposited, he would be accepting the appropriation made by the judgment-debtor under the award-decree in the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. This part of the reasoning in Prem Nath Kapur is, of course, also based on the reasoning that there is some inconsistency in Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code and the scheme of the Act. Prem Nath Kapur also indicates that when the decree itself specifies the amount payable under different heads (the decree has to do so under Section 26 of the Act) and amounts are deposited towards those Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) [ 5 ] different heads, the appropriation would be on the basis of the direction under the decree which must be taken to be one for crediting the various sums paid under particular heads. As regards the interest on the solatium, in the case of Prem Nath Kapur (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:- “15. Equally, the contention that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium is also not warranted by express provisions under Section 23(2) i.e, “in addition to” market value, solatium was required to be paid. Section 34 or Section 28, as the case may be, fastens liability to pay interest only on amount of compensation or such excess amount of compensation or part thereof determined under Section 23(1). In other words, by virtue of the language of Section 23(2), viz., “in addition to the market value” as provided in Section 23(1), solatium becomes payable. Compensation under Section 23(1) by necessary implication excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium. Equally, the question of payment of solatium on additional amount was also considered by this Court in P.Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer where it was held that no solatium is payable on additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A). So too, no interest is payable on additional amount under Section 23(1-A) on other components except on compensation or excess compensation or part thereof determined under Section 23(1) over and above the award under Section 11, by Civil Court under Section 26 or on appeal under Section 54, Civil Revision No.6619 of 2009(O&M) [ 6 ] respectively.” The view taken in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) was followed by this Court in Neelam vs. State of Haryana and others , Civil Revision No.5305 of 2008 decided on 24.2.2009. In the circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Executing Court with a direction to re-calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with aforesaid law, as laid down by the Apex Court. Parties to appear before the Executing Court on 31.3.2011. January 27, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE