Landowners Who Withdrew NTPC’s Itemised Compensation Without Objection Can’t Later Seek Interest-First Adjustment: P&H HC

The State/beneficiary acquired the petitioners’ land. After the Reference Court enhanced compensation, the matter proceeded to the appellate courts, and the Supreme Court reduced the compensation from ₹306 to ₹289 per square yard.

The respondent deposited compensation in instalments with the Court, submitting Form-D and calculation details showing appropriation under different heads. The landowners withdrew the deposited sums but later contended that they had not received Form-D and that the deposits should therefore be appropriated first towards interest. The Executing Court rejected that claim, finding that the deposits and withdrawals established intimation of the appropriation. The landowners challenged that order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award and decree specify compensation under distinct statutory heads, including those under Sections 23, 28 and 34; Section 26 concerns the form and contents of the award.

Relying on *Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd.*, (1996) 2 SCC 71, as approved in *Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India*, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 207, the Court held that when a judgment debtor deposits specified sums with an expressed allocation to distinct heads and the decree-holder receives them, the decree-holder cannot later seek re-appropriation as though no allocation had been intimated. Where a deposit is not specified as to its application, the general rule is appropriation first towards interest, then costs, and then principal; however, that rule does not displace a specified allocation communicated by the judgment debtor

The respondent filed a calculation sheet with the Executing Court identifying how the deposited compensation was to be appropriated. The landowners later withdrew the deposited sums without objection. Applying *Gurpreet Singh* and *Prem Nath Kapur*, the Court treated the filed calculation sheet, together with the withdrawals, as sufficient intimation and acceptance of the stated appropriation; separate service of Form-D was not required in those circumstances.

Permitting re-appropriation towards interest would reopen the satisfaction already accepted and could produce unjust enrichment, including interest on sums already received

Finding no basis to interfere with the Executing Court’s order under Article 227, the Court dismissed the petitions and disposed of any pending applications.