Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KARTAR SINGH @ Naranjan Singh & Ors.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/03/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 1726 1995 SCC (4) 101
JT 1995 (3) 422 1995 SCALE (2)598
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2.For the lands of the appellants acquired by the
notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
published on October 15, 1971, the Land Acquisition
Collector, in his award dated January 24, 1973, awarded a
sum of Rs. 1,30,949.30/-. On reference, the Addl. District
Judge, by his award and decree dated August 27, 1975,
enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per marla
but, on appeal by the respondent in R.F.A. No. 15/1976, it
was reduced to Rs.255/- per marla. Pending appeal, the
appellants had executed and recovered the enhanced com-
pensation with interest on May 27, 1976. The State,
therefore, filed an application under s. 144 CPC on February
28, 1983 for restitution of the excess amount with interest
payable thereon. The appellant had deposited principal
excess amount of Rs.57,920.26 on February 21, 1985. The
District Judge by his order dated March 15, 1985 while
upholding restitution of the excess amount, disallowed
interest payable thereon. On appeal, the High Court by the
impugned order in Execution F.A. No. 1374/85 dated November
5, 1985 directed the appellants to pay interest. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
3.Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended
that in an application for restitution under s. 144 of the
CPC the respondent is not entitled to the interest, since
there was no direction to pay interest. We find no force in
the contention. Admittedly, the appellants had realised the
enhanced amount of compensation with /interest computed
under s.28 of the Act.
4. Under s.144 C.P.C., the doctrine of restitution
contemplates that where property was received by a decree-
holder in execution of a decree which, on appeal, either in
whole or in part thereof, is subsequently reversed or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
varied, the court is empowered to restore to the judgment
debtor what has been lost to him in execution of the decree
and it is the consequence of the erroneous decree. The
restitution is consequential to the variation or reversal of
the decree or on its being modified or set aside. The
condition precedent for restitution, therefore, is that the
decree of the, trial court must be reversed or varied in
appeal or otherwise. The word "consequentially" lays
emphasis on the obligation on the party to the suit or
proceedings who received the benefit of the erroneous decree
to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost.
The court therefore, is bound to restore the parties, as far
as they can be, to the same position they were at the time
when the court by its erroneous action had displaced them
from it. Equally where a sum of money was recovered in
execution by a decree which was subsequently reversed or
varied, the judgment-debtor is entitled to get back not only
the sum recovered but also the interest thereon or damages
or compensation for the period that the amount had been
retained by him. The reason being that the person who has
taken the money improperly from the judgment-debtor has to
425
restitute to him the amount as a corollary with interest
during the time that the money has been withheld from him.
The owner or the person interested in the land when
recovered the compensation under the award and decree which
was reversed, varied or modified on appeal, the court is
empowered under s.144 CPC to restitute the amount to the
State with interest or quantified damages or by way of
compensation.
5. It is seen that the High Court had reduced the
compensation from Rs.300 to Rs.255,per marla and in the
meanwhile the appellants had recovered the award amount at
Rs.300/- per marla in execution with interest. So the
appellants are liable to restitute the excess amount
realised in execution of the decree of the reference court
or appeal under s.54 with interest. Granting of interest or
damage or compensation is consequential to the variation,
reversal or setting aside of the enhanced compensation under
s.23(1) and computation of statutory interest under s.28 on
enhanced compensation and interest on solatium if paid as
per the decree or order of the Court. The State is entitled
to restitute of the benefit accrued to the owner in the
original decree. Direction to restitute the amount with
interest is within the powers conferred on the court under
s. 144 of the Code. Therefore, the High Court rightly
directed the appellants to refund the enhanced amount with
interest since the appellants had the benefit of the money
after the realisation till date of return or restitution.
6. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
426