Delayed service of execution notice does not defeat interest on unpaid compensation.

Land was acquired for the Railways’ VOP Project, and the Reference Court’s decision enhancing compensation was followed by a First Appeal and cross-objections, which were partly allowed by the High Court on 7 March 1995.

The claimants filed execution proceedings in 1996, seeking ₹3,59,572.59.

After receiving notice in 2015, the Railways deposited the decreetal amount under protest; the Executing Court then ordered it to deposit the balance.

The Railways challenged that order, arguing that interest should not run from 1996 because notice of execution was served only in 2015.

The claimants maintained that the balance remained payable, including the difference in compensation reflected in their calculations.

Whether the Railways were liable for interest on the unpaid compensation from 1996, notwithstanding that notice of execution was served only in 2015.

Whether the Executing Court’s order directing deposit of the balance amount warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court relied on the compensation and solatium framework under the Land Acquisition Act, noting that the applicable amendment provided for solatium as part of compensation and increased the rate from 15% to 30%.

It applied the principle that a party liable to pay compensation cannot avoid interest for the period of non-payment merely because execution notice was served later, where the amount could have been deposited earlier.

No statutory section or judicial precedent was identified in the judgment as the basis for this reasoning.

The Court noted that the claimants’ entitlement to enhanced compensation had been established and that the Railways had not paid it after the appeal proceedings concluded in 1995, leading the claimants to institute execution proceedings in 1996.

It rejected the argument that interest should not accrue until service of notice in 2015: had the Railways deposited the compensation in 1996, the Court reasoned, interest would not have continued to arise.

Finding no merit in the challenge—and additionally referring to the smallness of the amount—the Court declined to interfere with the Executing Court’s order.

It directed the Executing Court to disburse the deposited compensation to the claimant-respondents after following due process and procedure.