CR No.914 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.914 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.2.2009 Haryana State Electricity Board ......Petitioner Versus Malkiat Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This revision petition has been filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board challenging the order dated 10.12.2008 whereby the calculations for payment of the compensation amount to the respondents in pursuance of the judgment of this Court passed in RFA No.2213 of 1990 decided on 18.10.2006 submitted by the petitioner-Board have been rejected and the petitioner-Board has been directed to furnish their fresh calculations and to pay respondent No.1 his due compensation after making calculations as per law. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') was issued for construction of 132 KV station. The land of respondent No.1 was acquired under the aforesaid notification. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land vide its award No.8 dated 14.2.1989 at the rate of Rs.88,000/- per acre for Nehri and Rs.44,000/- per acre for Barani Land. The reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed by respondent No.1 and others and the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act enhanced the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of CR No.914 of 2009 2 Rs.2,00,000/- per acre vide its judgment dated 17.7.1990 and held that the claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits as provided under the Act, as amended upto date, i.e. solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment. However, the claim of respondent No.1 was rejected by the Reference Court vide judgment/award dated 17.7.1990 passed in LAC case No.14 of 1990. Respondent No.1 preferred Regular First Appeal No.2213 of 1990 against the aforesaid award dated 17.7.1990 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2006 whereby respondent No.1 was held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court along with statutory benefits. Respondent No.1 filed an execution application for payment of compensation of the aforesaid judgment of this Court passed in Regular First Appeal No.2213 of 1990. Respondent No.1 submitted the calculations and showed an amount of Rs.7,83,500/- calculated upto 30.11.2007 whereas the petitioner-Board furnished the details in its affidavit dated 15.12.2007 showing the arrears of compensation at Rs.2,52,540/-. The main dispute which arose between the parties was with regard to difference in calculations. The amount of outstanding amount was calculated by respondent No.1 by adding statutory interest upto date whereas the petitioner had calculated and added the aforesaid benefit of statutory interest upto 7.12.1990 i.e. the date on which the disbursement of the said amount was made by the petitioner-Board to other claimants/land owners in pursuance of the award dated 17.7.1990 passed by the Reference Court. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 10.12.2008 has held that respondent No.1 is entitled to the statutory interest upto the CR No.914 of 2009 3 date of payment, on the amount of compensation as determined by the Reference Court and has rejected the calculations made by the petitioner- Board and has directed the petitioner-Board to furnish the compensation, decree-holder on or before 21.2.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no error in the order made by the Executing Court. As per judgment dated 18.10.2006 passed by this Court in RFA No.2213 of 1990, respondent No.1 is entitled to enhanced compensation as per the award of the Reference Court dated 17.7.1990 along with statutory benefits till the date of payment. The stand taken by the petitioner-Board cannot be said to be justified in any manner. There is no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. February 19, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE