GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED vs DHANIBEN PRABHATBHAI RABARI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/10725/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240400652023)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10725 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED
Versus
DHANIBEN PRABHATBHAI RABARI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NALANDA D ACHARYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 23/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Ms. Mona Gupta, learned advocate for Mr. N. V.
Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Ms.
Nalanda D. Acharya, learned AGP for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Mona Gupta, learned
advocate and Ms. Nalanda D. Acharya, learned AGP waives
service of Rule of admission on behalf of respective parties.
3. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for
hearing.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:12:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/10725/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240400652023)
4. At the outset Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for the
petitioner, would submit that after the award passed by the
Reference Court, the petitioner herein deposited the amount as
demanded by the respondent No.1 in her first execution petition
being Execution Petition No.80 of 2004, and nothing would
thereafter survive in the matter. It is submitted that after receipt
of the amount which otherwise payable as per the award of
Reference Court to the respondent No.1, again a fresh execution
petition came to be filed by the respondent No.1, wherein she
asked for a cumulative interest on the principal sum payable
under the award.
4.1 It is further submitted that despite objection raised by the
petitioner that there cannot be any compounded/cumulative
interest to be payable on principal sum, the Executing Court
vide its impugned order dated 31.03.2023 did not accept such
submission rather disallowed it by rejecting the objections filed
by the petitioner herein.
4.2 Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner further
submitted that as per settled position of law and the provisions
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no interest as such would be
payable on a principal sum in the present case, inasmuch as it
is a case of a temporary acquisition. It is submitted that neither
statute nor any reason assigned by the Reference Court to grant
any compounding/cumulative interest on the principal sum, it is
not appropriate on the part of the respondent No.1 to claim such
interest.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:12:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/10725/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240400652023)
4.3 Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner would
humbly request this Court to remand back the matter to the
Reference Court for appropriate adjudication of the objection
raised by the petitioner.
5. Per contra , Ms. Mona Gupta, learned advocate for Mr. N. V.
Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent No.1/original
claimant, would submit that as such there is no much less any
gross error committed by the Executing Court while adjudicating
the objection raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per
the operating portion of the award passed by the Reference
Court, it is categorically observed that the claimant is entitled to
receive 12% per annum compounded interest, and accordingly,
the petitioner is liable to pay such interest. It is submitted that
merely because in first execution proceedings, the claimant did
not count the interest on the compounded basis, that would not
debar the claimant to receive the benefit as per the award.
5.1 Ms. Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent No.1
would not dispute the position of law that ordinarily, the
Reference Court may grant simple interest on the principal sum,
but in the case at hand, if the Reference Court has already
granted compounded interest in favour of the claimant, the
Executing Court has correctly disallowed the objection raised on
behalf of the petitioner.
6. Ms. Nalanda D. Acharya, learned AGP, would only submit
that this Court may pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:12:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/10725/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240400652023)
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the award
passed by the Reference Court, prima facie, it appears that it is a
case of a temporary acquisition wherein the award in question
passed by the Reference Court. It cannot be disputed by the
claimant that in a such type of acquisition, there is no interest
would have been payable upon principal sum. Yet, the Reference
Court in the case at hand awarded the interest that too at the
rate of 12% per annum. At the time of granting such interest, it
is observed that the claimant is entitled to receive the principal
amount of compensation with 12% compounded interest. It is
also undisputed fact that at the time of filing first execution
petition, the claimant has calculated the compensation with 12%
simple interest, and in fact, it is not in dispute between the
parties that as per the first execution proceedings, the entire
amount including interest has been deposited/paid to the
respondent No.1 by the petitioner. Thereafter, the claimant
comes out with the second execution proceeding wherein she
has calculated compounded interest on the compensation
amount and asks for the balance amount which according to the
claimant is due and payable by the petitioner as per award.
8. Since the issue is in narrow compass as to whether the
Reference Court has in fact awarded compounded interest or
not, the Executing Court while considering the objection raised
by the petitioner, arrived at a conclusion that as per plain
reading of the operating portion of the award of the Reference
Court, the interest has to be calculated on compounded basis
and accordingly rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:12:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/10725/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240400652023)
9. I have also gone through the award passed by the
Reference Court wherein nowhere it has been clearly stated that
the Reference Court is considered to grant any compounded
interest in favour of the claimant while awarding compensation.
As observed above, it is a case of temporary acquisition and the
law as regards not to grant any interest on the compensation
amount is well settled. If it be so, the Executing Court is
required to consider as to whether the granting of interest on the
compensation amount that too on compounded basis by the
Reference Court can be said to be within the jurisdiction of the
Reference Court or not. According to me, such objection goes to
the root of the matter, and as per provisions of Section 47 of
CPC, it is a duty of the Executing Court to decide such aspect.
Since, no such issue ever raised before the Executing Court, but
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and prima
facie, there is no reason assigned by the Reference Court while
awarding 12% interest on the compensation amount, it would
not be appropriate for this Court to decide such issue at this
stage, but it would be appropriate that the matter can be
remanded back to the Executing Court, where after giving an
opportunity to the all parties concerned, the Executing Court
can decide such issue in accordance with law.
10. In view of the foregoing observation and discussion, the
impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheda below
Exhibit-20 in Special Execution No.15 of 2017 is hereby quashed
and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Executing
Court to decide the objection submitted by the petitioner afresh.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:12:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/10725/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240400652023)
It is open for the parties to file their additional objections and
reply, if any, before the Executing Court. The Executing Court is
directed to decide such objection in accordance with law without
being influenced by any of the observations so made by this
Court hereinabove.
11. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
CHIRAG D PAL
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:12:09 IST 2026