Execution proceedings are unsustainable where claimants undertake not to press them pending adjudication of an appeal.

The petitioner (AUDA) challenged three orders dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalol, in Special Execution Petition Nos. 12, 13, and 14 of 2017

These execution proceedings arose from Land Acquisition Reference Cases where the trial court had awarded compensation.

The petitioner had previously filed First Appeals (Nos. 1233, 1244, and 1240 of 2018) against the reference awards

In those appeals, the High Court had stayed the awards on the condition that AUDA deposit the entire awarded amount.

Subsequently, the High Court allowed the claimants to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount while directing the remainder to be kept in a fixed deposit

During the appellate proceedings, the claimants’ counsel stated they would not press the execution proceedings

However, the executing court later issued attachment warrants against AUDA’s properties to recover additional interest claimed under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

1. Whether the executing court was justified in issuing attachment warrants when the claimants had previously undertaken before the High Court not to press execution proceedings in view of the conditional stay and withdrawal of funds

2. Whether the execution proceedings could be adjudicated further while the First Appeals addressing the underlying awards were still pending

Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates the payment of an additional 12% interest per annum on the market value from the date of the Section 4(1) notification to the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier

The court also applied the principle of judicial propriety regarding undertakings given to a higher court, specifically that a party is bound by a statement made by their advocate to not pursue execution in exchange for a conditional stay and partial disbursement of funds

The court observed that the Division Bench, in the related First Appeals, had granted a stay on the reference awards subject to the deposit of the awarded amount

It was explicitly recorded in those proceedings that the claimants would not press the execution petitions

The petitioner argued that once the amount was deposited and 50% was withdrawn by the claimants as per the High Court's directions, the executing court could not have passed further orders for attachment regarding interest calculations

While the claimants argued there was a "short payment" of interest under Section 23(1A) due to a dispute over whether the interest period was 4 months or 28 months, they eventually conceded that they should not have pursued the execution at this stage

The court found that since the original claimants agreed to withdraw the execution petitions and reserve their right to dispute the interest calculation within the pending First Appeals, the impugned execution orders were unsustainable

The court directed the claimants to file necessary applications to withdraw the execution petitions within ten days, without prejudice to their rights to raise contentions regarding the calculation of 12% interest under Section 23(1A) in the pending First Appeals

The stay previously granted was vacated following the quashing of the impugned orders