Delhi District Court6293/2010, Titled As "Rai Singh vs . Union Of India" on 4 January, 2016IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
             DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.


Ex. No. 246/10


Paras Ram (Through LRs)

vs.

Union of India

                                ORDER04.01.20161.               An execution petition filed for payment of interest
on solatium and additional amount in view of judgment of
Sunder Singh's case as per decree dated 21.05.1999 passed
in RFA No. 142/90 and order dated 30.07.2004. It is stated
that UOI filed SLP against the above said RFA which has been
dismissed by Apex Court on 13.08.2010.It is further stated
that Decree Holder has received enhancement as per
judgment of High Court except interest on solatium in view of
Sunder      Singh's    judgment,      now     followed     in   CA   No.
6293/2010, titled as "Rai Singh Vs. Union of India"decided by Apex Court on 05.08.2010. The present execution
petition is for payment of interest part on solatium and 12%
additional amount. It is prayed that JD may kindly be directed
to deposit the decreetal amount with the Hon'ble Court as
detailed in the statement filed by Decree Holder and further
issue warrant of attachment on current amount of LAC
maintained with SBI, District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi and /or
other properties of JD may also be attached in the interest of
justice.Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI1/92.               During   execution      proceedings,       a   calculation
report submitted by District Nazir on the interest of solatium
and additional amount. The Decree Holder objected the same
and filed objections. In the objections, it is stated that the
report of District Nazir is totally wrong, illegal, misconceived
and contrary to law and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. A sum of Rs.9,44,289/- has been attached pursuant to
the report of the District Nazir, which is highly insufficient. It
is further stated that the District Nazir has committed serious
illegality in calculating the interest amount only on the
difference of compensation granted by the Hon'ble High
Court. The Ld. ADJ has fixed the market value of the acquired
land at a uniform rate of Rs.47,224/- per Bigha. Hence, the
9% and 15% interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional
amount has to be calculated on the market value of the land
fixed by the Hon'ble High Court i.e. interest on 30% solatuim
and 12% additional amount on the acquired land at the rate
of Rs.47,224/- per Bigha w.e.f. 09.10.1986 to 08.10.1987 @
9% and from 09.10.1987 till date of payment @ 15%.
However, the District Nazir has calculated the interest @ 15%
for the period between 09.10.1987 to 06.09.2006, which is
totally wrong, illegal, baseless and misconceived.3.               The Decree Holders prayed that Nazir be directed
to file a fresh report/ calculation regarding the actual amount
of interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional amount,
payable to the Decree Holder. It is further prayed to direct the
attachment of the balance amount.Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI2/94.               The    Judgment        Debtor     filed       detailed      written
submissions to the objections in connected case titled 'Mir
Singh vs. UOI' Ex. No. 250/10/06.5.               I have heard Sh. S.S. Pawar, Ld. Counsel for the
Decree Holder, Sh. Sachin Nawani, Ld. Counsel for the
Judgment Debtor and perused the record.6.               In order to appreciate respective contentions of
parties, it is necessary to go through the record.                             It is
admitted         case   of     the   Decree      Holder    that        the    award
announced in way back in 1986-87 and as per award the
payment was received by Decree Holder. Thereafter, Decree
Holder     filed    reference        underSection      18of    the    Land
Acquisition Act before the court of Ld. ADJ and the same was
decided in the year 1989. As per judgment/order of Ld. ADJ,
Decree Holder already received amount. Thereafter, an
appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and the same
was decided in the year 1999 and the payment was received
as per enhancement by the Hon'ble High Court.                                 In the
present case, execution no. 114/08/99 was filed by Decree
Holder. As per judgment and decree of Hon'ble High Court, in
which the enhanced amount along with other components as
per Sunder Singh's judgment were claimed. As per record, the
said execution petition was decided as satisfied and file was
consigned to Record Room on 15.10.2009.7.               Now coming to the present execution.                           The
genesis of this execution petition lies with the order of

Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI3/9
 Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 6293/2010, titled as "Rai
Singh Vs. Union of India" decided on 05.08.2010, the SLP
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the aggrieved
one of the Decree Holder approaches the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on dismissal of writ petition filed before the High Court
and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2008.The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the judgment ofSunder vs. Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 211;Gurpreet Singh
vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 457; Patel Joitara Kalidas &
Ors. vs. Special LAC & Ors., 2007 (2) SCC 341;Land
Acquisition Officer vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., 2010
(6) SCALE 623, held as under:"7. In this case, the High Court, in its judgment
                 dated      02.11.1998      and     01.12.1998,      did     not
                 expressly or impliedly reject the claim for interest
                 on solatium amount. As on date, 12 years have not
                 expired from the date of final disposal of the
                 matters on 20.01.2004 by this Court, dismissing
                 the appeal of the Union of India against the
                 judgments of the High Court. The full satisfaction
                 of the award/decree has not been entered by the
                 Executing Court. On the principlelaid down bythis
                 Court, we are of the view that appellants will be
                 entitled to interest on the amount of solatium. In
                 fact, filing of the writ petition was misconceived
                 and unnecessary. Even without filing the writ
                 petition    the    appellants     could      have   filed   an
                 Execution claiming the interest on solatium also."8.               Now the controversy emerges is that whether
Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of

Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI4/9
 solatium from the Era of Collector's award and Reference
Award or appeal in High Court or only on High Court's
enhanced amount.In order to appreciate, it is essential that
the fundamental point has to be kept in mind that when the
present award kept by LAC and reference underSection 18of
the Act answered by the Ld. ADJ Court, at that point of time,
judgment of'Prem Nath Kapoor & others vs. National
Fertilizer', 1996 (2) SCC 71 was in force.Judgment of 'Sunder
vs. Union of India', 2001 (7) SCC 211, came into force even
after the decision of the High Court in respective appeals i.e.
after September, 2001.The interpretation ofSunder's Case
(Supra), judgmentlaid down inthe case of Gurpreet Singh's
(Supra).         Hence, the entitlement of any compensation of
payable amount has to be calculated as per Gurpreet Singh's
(Supra) judgment.InGurpreet Singh's (Supra) case, it has
been discussed the interpretation the scheme ofLand
Acquisition Actregarding payment to the farmers. In para 32,
33, 34 and 35, held as under:"32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the
                 award of compensation is at different stages. The
                 first stage occurs when the award is passed.
                 Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts
                 contemplated bySection 23 (1).Section 23(1-A),Section 23 (2)and the interest contemplated bySection 34of the Act. The whole of that amount is
                 paid or deposited by the Collector in terms ofSection 31of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in
                 deposit as contemplated, since the Collector has
                 to pay or deposit the amount awarded by him. If a
                 shortfall is pointed out, it may have to be made up



Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI5/9
                  at that stage and the principle of appropriation
                 may apply, though, it is difficult to contemplate a
                 partial deposit at that stage. On the deposit by the
                 Collector underSection 31of the Act, the first
                 stage comes to an end subject to the amount with
                 or without protest.33. The second stage occurs on a reference underSection 18of the Act. When the Reference Court
                 awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily
                 to take note of the enhanced amounts payable
                 underSection 23 (1),Section 23(1-A),Section 23
                 (2)and interest on the enhanced amount as
                 provided inSection 28of the Act and costs in
                 terms ofSection 27. The Collector has the duty to
                 deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed
                 decree thus passed.       This has nothing to do with
                 the earlier deposit made or to be made under and
                 after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of
                 the enhancement decreed, there can arise the
                 question of appropriation at that stage in relation
                 to the amount enhanced on the reference.34.    The third stage occurs, when in appeal, the
                 High   Court    enhanced       the    compensation   as
                 indicated already. That enhanced compensation
                 would also bear interest on the enhanced portion
                 of the compensation whenSection 28is applied.The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to
                 be deposited in addition to the amount awarded
                 by the Reference Court if it had not already been
                 deposited.Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI6/935.     The fourth stage may be when the Supreme
                 Court enhances the compensation and at that
                 stage too, the same rule would apply."Further in para 54 of the judgment, it is held as under:"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,    the
                 awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim
                 interest on solatium in execution through 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


Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI7/9
                  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
                 underArticle 141and142of the Constitution of
                 India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation
                 on this question."9.               Now applying the above proposition of law in the
present circumstance, the Decree Holder is now entitled for
the payment for the third stage. They cannot revert back to
the stage of Collector or Reference Court especially when the
case ofSunder's (Supra) was not applicable.The judgment of
Hon'ble High Court in appeal was silent on the point of
interest on the amount of solatium and now as per order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court inRai Singh's case (Supra), they are
entitled for amount of solatium, which is emerging out from
the High Court judgment. Secondly, the Decree Holders have
already received all the due amount on the date of receiving
of the compensation amount along with different components
as per law was enforced at that relevant time period. It is
pertinent to mention here that no execution petition pending
on behalf of Decree Holder for payment as per award of LAC
or judgment of Reference Court.Furthermore, now 12 years

Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI8/9
 have elapsed, therefore, enforcement of payment on the
basis of award of LAC/Collector or Reference Court underSection 18of the Act is barred by limitation. Therefore,
Decree Holders are not entitled to any interest on the amount
of solatium on the award of LAC/Collector or Reference
answered by the court of Ld. Additional District Judge. The
Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of
solatium only as per judgment of High Court on the enhanced
amount.In case Decree Holder has received interest on
solatium, then no interest is payable as per order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court inRai Singh's case (Supra). The execution
petition and the objections are decided accordingly.Announced in the open court
today the 4th January, 2016.(Sanjay Kumar)
                                               ADJ-02,West/Delhi
                                                     04.01.2016




Ex. No. 246/10Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI9/9