CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA versus RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI & ANR.

[2021] 8 S.C.R.

CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA

RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 4623 of 2021)

BAUGUST 05, 2021

[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]

Interest – Payable on solatium – The decree was put inexecution and the Execution Court had passed the order which isimpugned by the appellant, by which the appellant is directed toCpay interest on solatium from the date the 1st respondent wasdeprived of her possession – The dispute in question which arisesfor consideration is whether interest is payable on solatium fromthe date possession was taken from the 1st respondent – The physicalpossession was taken on 16.06.1990 – The contention of theDappellant, however, is that this is case where the principle whichwas enunciated by Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India(2006) 8 SCC 457 would apply and interest on solatium could begranted only from the date of the judgment of Supreme Court inSunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 i.e. 19-09-2001 – Held: Inthe Award passed, it is clear that interest is not seen granted onEsolatium – What is granted is only solatium – The judgment of theHigh Court in appeal carried by the 1st respondent, therein also, itis clear that the High Court has not granted interest on solatium –Therefore, it is case which must be dealt with in terms of thedeclaration of law made in Gurpreet Singh, which held that “But ifFthe award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate courtdoes not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium orin cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expresslyor impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, andmerely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be opento the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that theGcompensation awarded includes solatium and in such an eventinterest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution.Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium canbe claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executionsand the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery fromHthe date of the judgment in Sunder (19-09-2001) and not for any

prior period”– Thus, it is ordered that the 1st respondent will beentitled to interest on solatium from the date of Sunder v. Union ofIndia viz. 19-09-2001 – Accordingly, appeals are allowed.

Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 :[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 422; Sunder v. Union of India(2001) 7 SCC 211 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 176 – reliedon.

Central Government of India v. Bakhta & Another etc.(SLP (C)Nos. 21784-21799 of 2013) – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4623of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 1400 of 2015 (O&M).

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, A. K. Kohli, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Siddhant Kohli, A. K. Sharma,Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellant.

Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was passed by

K. M. JOSEPH, J.

Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral appearing for the appellant, and Mr. J.S. Thind, learned counselfor the 1[st] respondent.

By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld order dated11.11.2014 by which the objections filed by the appellant were disposedof by the Execution Court and the appellant was directed to make paymenton or before 12.01.2015.

AThe dispute in question which arises for our consideration is whetherinterest is payable on solatium from the date possession was taken fromthe 1[st] respondent. There is no doubt that physical possession was takenin this case on 16.06.1990. The contention of the appellant, however, isthat this is case where the principle which has been enunciated by thisCourt in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 would applyBand interest on solatium could be granted only from the date of thejudgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 i.e.19-09-2001.

We may notice the reasoning of the High Court, which is asfollows:C

“Mr. J. S. Thind, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondentNo. 1-claimant-landowner submits that this Court while decidingthe R.F.A. had granted the element of solatium and interest andthe findings have been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.This fact is not disputed by the other side. He submits that theDaward granting solatium and interest being not part of the decreehas already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orderdated 2.1.2014 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21784-21799 of 2013 (Central Govt. of India, Thru Defence Est. VersusBakhta & another etc. etc.). In the other matters also, the landEowners had assailed the findings of the Executing Court and thesame have been set-aside by this Court vide order dated 21.2.2013passed in Civil Revision No. 3160 of 2012 and other connectedmatters (Annexure P-10). This fact is also not disputed by thecounsel for the petitioner.

In view of the aforementioned facts, I do not find anyillegality and perversity in the order under challenge. Nointerference in the impugned order is called for.”

Therefore, as already noticed, the question arises whether in thefacts of this case, the 1[st] respondent was entitled to interest fromGthe date the 1[st] respondent was deprived of physical possessionor from the date of the judgment in Sunder supra.

Award was passed in this case on 12.06.1990. The relevantpart reads:

“The land owners and the interested persons will be entitledHto 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of

acquisition on the total price of land. In view of the amendedproposition of section 23 of the act the land owners are also entitledan additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market value fromthe date of notification u/s 4 which will be paid later on after theapproval of the appropriate Government under Section 11(iii) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and allotment of funds. The landowners are also entitled to get 12% additional amount on theremaining amount of compensation from the date of takingpossession and an additional interest @ 9% per annum on theremaining amount in connection with possession till they get finalpayment.”

It is not in dispute that the 1[st] respondent along with othersappealed the Award and in the judgment, the High Court grantedrelief to the appellants by enhancing the compensation and it isnecessary to notice the relief portion which reads as follows:

“While adopting the reasoning given in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case(supra) and in view of the reasons and circumstances stated hereinabove, the Regular First Appeals preferred by the claimants arepartly accepted while those preferred by the Union of India aredismissed. Resultantly, the claimants would be entitled to get asum of Rs. 4,06,320.00 per acre with all the statutory benefitsavailable to them, more particularly, under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2)and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, there shall be noorder as to costs.”

There is no doubt that the said judgment has become final, theappeals and special leave petition being dismissed.

The decree was put in execution and the Execution Court haspassed the order which is impugned by the appellant herein, by whichthe appellant is directed to pay interest on solatium from the date the 1[st]respondent was deprived of her possession.

The High Court proceeded in this case on the basis that not onlywas solatium ordered in favour of the 1[st] respondent but 1[st] respondentwas also granted the benefit of interest on solatium.

The second plank on which the judgment of the High Court issupported is the order passed by this Court in the case of CentralGovernment of India v. Bakhta & Another etc.(SLP (C)Nos. 21784-21799 of 2013).

AThe stand of the appellant is that this is claim where the mattermust be resolved with reference to the law enunciated in Gurpreet Singhsupra. The relevant portion of the declaration is to be found in para 54of the judgment:

54. One other question also was sought to be raised and answeredBby this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that thequestion arises in various cases pending in courts all over thecountry, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question.That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder(2001) 7 SCC 211, the awardee/decree-holder would be entitledto claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specificallyCgranted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution courtcannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for intereston solatium had been made and the same has been negativedeither expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment ordecree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, theDexecution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for intereston solatium based on Sunder on the ground that the executioncourt cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of theReference Court or that of the appellate court does not specificallyrefer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases whereclaim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedlyEby the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely intereston compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the executioncourt to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensationawarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on theamount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise,Fnot. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimedonly in pending executions and not in closed executions and theexecution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from thedate of the judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any priorperiod. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriationor fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have indicatedGby way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with view to avoidmultiplicity of litigation on this question.”

We have noticed the terms of the Award as also the judgment ofthe High Court in appeal carried by the respondents.H

As far as the Award passed is concerned, it is clear that interestis not seen granted on solatium. What is granted is only solatium. Movingon to the judgment of the High Court in appeal carried by the 1[st]respondent, therein also, it is clear beyond the shadow of any doubt thatthe High Court has not granted interest on solatium. What is seen grantedby the High Court is the benefit under Section 23(2) among other statutorybenefits. We are unable to find reference to interest on solatium.Therefore, this would be case which must be dealt with in terms of thedeclaration of law made in Gurpreet Singh supra.

Shri J. S. Thind, learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, would,however, try to persuade us to support the decision of the High Court bypointing out that as found by the High Court in the impugned judgment,Government of India failed in the special leave petition carried againstthe judgment of the High Court which also arose from executionproceedings in the case of Central Government of India v. Bakhta &Another etc. which also arose from the same Award.

We have perused the order which is relied on by the learnedcounsel for the respondent. It is true that the special leave petition carriedby the appellant was dismissed. However, what is pertinent to note iswhat was the issue which was involved in the said case. In batch ofmatters, the Executing Court in the said case had awarded interest onsolatium from the date of the judgment in Sunder supra. It was this orderwhich was upheld by the High Court by its judgment dated 25.01.2013.We may only notice paragraph 6 of the said judgment:

“6. In view of the legal proposition enunciated in these authorities,Court of Reference/Executing Court was perfectly justified inallowing the interest on the solatium with effect from September19[th], 2001 in execution proceedings.”

It is this order which was the subject matter of the special leavepetition before this Court which came to be dismissed. In other words,this was the case where the Executing Court had applied the principle inGurpreet Singh supra and granted interest on solatium from the date ofthe judgment in Sunder viz., 19-09-2001 in the execution proceeding.We are unable to comprehend as to how this judgment can come to therescue of the respondent. We are, therefore, of the clear view that theappeal is to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. Impugnedorder will stand set aside. The order which was impugned before the

AHigh Court will stand set aside and it is ordered that the 1[st] respondentwill be entitled to interest on solatium from the date of Sunder (supra)viz.19-9-2001.

No orders as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.