Full Judgment Text
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 12066 of 2021)
(Arising out of SLP (C)CC No. 4865 of 2017)
CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Delay in filing the special leave petition is
condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the appellant, and Mr.
st
J.S.Thind, learned counsel for the 1 respondent.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld order
dated 11.11.2014 by which the objections filed by the
appellant were disposed of by the Execution Court and the
appellant was directed to make payment on or before
12.01.2015.
Signature Not Verified
The dispute in question which arises for our
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.08.13
17:08:40 IST
Reason:
consideration is whether interest is payable on solatium
1
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
st
from the date possession was taken from the 1 respondent.
There is no doubt that physical possession was taken in this
case on 16.06.1990. The contention of the appellant,
however, is that this is a case where the principle which
has been enunciated by this Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union
of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 would apply and interest on
solatium could be granted only from the date of the judgment
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 as follows:
“Mr. J. S. Thind, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 1-claimant-landowner
submits that this Court while deciding the R.F.A.
had granted the element of solatium and interest and
the findings have been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. This fact is not disputed by the other side.
He submits that the award granting solatium and
interest being not part of the decree has already
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 2.1.2014 passed in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 21784-21799 of 2013 (Central Govt. of
India, Thru Defence Est. Versus Bakhta & another
etc. etc.). In the other matters also, the land
owners had assailed the findings of the Executing
Court and the same have been set-aside by this Court
vide order dated 21.2.2013 passed in Civil Revision
No. 3160 of 2012 and other connected matters
(Annexure P-10). This fact is also not disputed by
the counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the aforementioned facts, I do not
find any illegality and perversity in the order
under challenge. No interference in the impugned
order is called for.”
Therefore, as already noticed, the question arises
2
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
st
whether in the facts of this case, the 1 respondent was
st
entitled to interest from the date the 1 respondent was
deprived of physical possession or from the date of the
judgment in Sunder supra.
Award was passed in this case on 12.06.1990. The
relevant part reads:
“The land owners and the interested persons will
be entitled to 30% solatium in consideration of
compulsory nature of acquisition on the total price of
land. In view of the amended proposition of section 23
of the act the land owners are also entitled an
additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market
value from the date of notification u/s 4 which will be
paid later on after the approval of the appropriate
Government under Section 11(iii) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and allotment of funds. The land
owners are also entitled to get 12% additional amount
on the remaining amount of compensation from the date
of taking possession and an additional interest @ 9%
per annum on the remaining amount in connection with
possession till they get final payment.”
st
It is not in dispute that the 1 respondent along with
others appealed the Award and in the judgment, the High
Court granted relief to the appellants by enhancing the
compensation and it is necessary 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 herein above, the Regular First
Appeals preferred by the claimants are partly
accepted while those preferred by the Union of India
are dismissed. Resultantly, the claimants would be
entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,06,320.00 per acre with
all the statutory benefits available to them, more
particularly, under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of
the Land Acquisition Act. However, there shall be no
3
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
order as to costs.”
There is no doubt that the said judgment has become
final, the appeals and special leave petition being
dismissed.
The decree was put in execution and the Execution
Court has passed the order which is impugned by the
appellant herein, by which the appellant is directed to pay
st
interest on solatium from the date the 1 respondent was
deprived of her possession.
The High Court proceeded in this case on the basis
st
that not only was solatium ordered in favour of the 1
st
respondent but 1 respondent was also granted the benefit of
interest on solatium.
The second plank on which the judgment of the High
Court is supported is the order passed by this Court in the
case of Central Government of India v. Bakhta & Another etc.
(SLP (C)Nos. 21784-21799 of 2013).
The stand of the appellant is that this is a claim
where the matter must be resolved with reference to the law
enunciated in Gurpreet Singh supra. The relevant portion of
the declaration is to be found in para 54 of the judgment:
54. One other question also was sought to be raised
and answered by this Bench though not referred to it.
Considering that the question arises in various cases
pending in courts all over the country, 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
4
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in
execution though it is not specifically granted by
the decree. It is well settled that an execution
court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore,
the claim for interest on solatium had been made and
the same has been negatived either expressly or by
necessary implication by the judgment or decree of
the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the
execution court will have necessarily to reject the
claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder on the
ground that the execution court cannot go behind the
decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or
that of the appellate court does not specifically
refer to the question of interest on solatium or in
cases where claim had not been made and rejected
either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court
or the appellate court, and merely interest on
compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the
execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say
that the compensation awarded includes solatium and
in such an event interest on the amount could be
directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise,
not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium
can be claimed only in pending executions and not in
closed executions and the execution court will be
entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the
judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any prior
period. We also clarify that this will not entail
any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the
decree-holder. This we have indicated by way of
clarification also in exercise of our power under
Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India
with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on
this question.”
We have noticed the terms of the Award as also the
judgment of the High Court in appeal carried by the
respondents.
As far as the Award passed is concerned, it is clear
that interest is not seen granted on solatium. What is
granted is only solatium. Moving on to the judgment of the
st
High Court in appeal carried by the 1 respondent, therein
5
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
also, it is clear beyond the shadow of any doubt that the
High Court has not granted interest on solatium. What is
seen granted by the High Court is the benefit under Section
23(2) among other statutory benefits. We are unable to find
reference to interest on solatium. Therefore, this would be
a case which must be dealt with in terms of the declaration
of law made in Gurpreet Singh supra.
st
Shri J. S. Thind, learned counsel for the 1
respondent, would, however, try to persuade us to support
the decision of the High Court by pointing out that as found
by the High Court in the impugned judgment, Government of
India failed in the special leave petition carried against
the judgment of the High Court which also arose from
execution proceedings 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
learned counsel for the respondent. It is true that the
special leave petition carried by the appellant was
dismissed. However, what is pertinent to note is what was
the issue which was involved in the said case. In a batch
of matters, the Executing Court in the said case had awarded
interest on solatium from the date of the judgment in Sunder
supra. It was this order which was upheld by the High Court
by its judgment dated 25.01.2013. We may only notice
6
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
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 in allowing the interest on
th
the solatium with effect from September 19 , 2001 in
execution proceedings.”
It is this order which was the subject matter of the
special leave petition before this Court which came to be
dismissed. In other words, this was the case where the
Executing Court had applied the principle in Gurpreet Singh
supra and granted interest on solatium from the date of the
judgment in Sunder viz., 19-09-2001 in the execution
proceeding. We are unable to comprehend as to how this
judgment can come to the rescue of the respondent. We are,
therefore, of the clear view that the appeal is to be
allowed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. Impugned order
will stand set aside. The order which was impugned before
the High Court will stand set aside and it is ordered that
st
the 1 respondent will be entitled to interest on solatium
from the date of Sunder (supra) viz. 19-9-2001.
No orders as to costs.
…………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ]
…………………………………………………………., J.
[ S. RAVINDRA BHAT ]
New Delhi;
August 05, 2021.
7
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
(@ SLP (C)No.12066/2021)(@ SLP (C)CC No. 4865/2017)
ITEM NO.2 Court 12 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4623/2021
CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 1/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Date : 05-08-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
For Appellant(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG
Mr. A.K. Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv.
Mr. A. K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
Leave granted.
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (BEENA JOLLY)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file.)
8