CIVIL REVISION NO.2603 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 04, 2008 State of Haryana .....Petitioner VERSUS Atul Satsangi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. State of Haryana has filed this revision petition, impugning the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, in execution proceedings, directing payment of interest on the amount of compensation awarded. The brief facts of the case are that the land of the respondents was acquired by State on 7.10.1991. The Collector determined the compensation as Rs.35,02,507-50P. This amount CIVIL REVISION NO.2603 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: was not paid to the decree holders despite numerous communications to the Collector. Ultimately, this amount was paid on 2.7.1998 and 27.8.1998. During this period, the respondents also sought reference under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act and the reference Court fixed the rate of compensation at Rs.328.50P per Sq.Yard. The total amount of compensation, as payable, thus worked out to be Rs.1,02,55,113/-. A sum of Rs.30,76,533/- was payable as solatium and, thus, total amount payable came to be Rs.1,33,31,646/-. 12% interest was payable from 2.8.1989 to 7.10.1991, which, thus, worked out to be Rs.20,96,235/-. The payment due was released from time to time, which was done on account of attachment etc. The parties also differed on calculation in regard to the sum payable and one Chartered Accountant was appointed as Local Commissioner to file the report. The amount deposited was first required to be adjusted towards principal and then towards interest and Local Commissioner accordingly found that the amount payable to the judgment debtors is Rs.17,22,566/-. In the execution, only objection filed by the State was that the Local Commissioner has not deducted an amount of 30% solatium, which was already paid. Counsel appearing for the respondents contended before the executing Court that the amount awarded by the Collector was not paid to the respondents on one pretext or the other. In response to this, it was urged that the land owners were under a duty to collect the amount awarded. This reasoning was not accepted by the executing court. It has rightly CIVIL REVISION NO.2603 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: been observed that the land owners could only make an application for payment to the Land Acquisition Collector. It is in this background that the executing Court has held the respondents entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of award of the Collector till the date of payment. It is on this basis and in the manner in which the interest so calculated is to be adjusted that the executing Court has directed payment of the amount due through the impugned order. Even in a recent case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the ratio of law laid down in Prem Nath Kapur Vs. National Fertilizers Corpn. Of India Ltd., (1996) (2) Supreme Court Cases 71. The essential ratio on appopriation being at different stages as laid down in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) has been justified in Gurpreet Singh's case(supra). It is accordingly held that if at a particular stage there is a short fall, the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards principal, unless ofcourse, the decree otherwise directs. It has also been held in Gurpreet Singh's case(supra) that interest on solatium can only be awarded in execution if reference Court or the Appellate Court has not negatived the same expressly or by implication. In this case, the compensation was not paid at all and the liability to pay interest would, thus, remain. The counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out any legal infirmity in the direction issued by the trial Court in regard to CIVIL REVISION NO.2603 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: the interest and the amount that shall be due to the decree holders. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and would dismiss the present revision petition. February 04, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE