Skip to content


Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 975 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1979P& H271
AppellantSohan Lal and ors.
RespondentState of Haryana
Cases Referred and Kesireddi Appala Swamy v. Special Tehsildar
Excerpt:
.....bench judgments of the andhra pradesh high court reported in r. in the operative part of the order of the high court, it is clearly mentioned that the appellants will be entitled to compensation at the rate of rs......in accordance with the order of the high court which amount represented rupees 1,05,000/- as enhanced compensation, 15% solatium and 6% interest from the date of taking possession till the payment.4. the petitioners have come in this revision and it is urged that the order of the executing court is wholly illegal and erroneous and that the court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law for the reason that it has misread the operative part of the judgment of the high court and the view taken by it is opposed to two full bench judgments of the andhra pradesh high court reported in r. d. suryanarayana rao v. the revenue divisional officer, guntur, air 1969 andh pra 55 and kesireddi appala swamy v. special tehsildar, land acquisition officer, vijayawada, air 1970 andh.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This revision arises out of the order of the Executing Court dated 6th of March, 1979, declining the prayer of the petitioners for the grant of 6% interest and 15% solatium on the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- on which they had paid the Court-fee in this Court.

2. In land acquisition proceedings some land of Tek Chand, who is now represented by the petitioners as his legal representatives, was acquired and he was awarded compensation first by the Land Acquisition Collector which matter came before the District Judge. The claimant was dissatisfied with the award of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, and filed R. F. A. No. 422 of 1969, in this Court and paid Court-fees of Rs. 3,368.80 for further enhancement of compensation by Rs. 1,05,000/-. in the prayer clause of the grounds of appeal, he stated as follows:--

'The compensation awarded to the appellants may be increased by an additional sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- including the arrears of interest plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges.'

The regular first appeal came up for final decision before Gurnam Singh, J., who by judgment dated 8th of August, 1978, fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 7/- per sq. yard, but since the claimant had claimed enhancement by Rs. 1,05,000/- on which amount he had paid Court-fee of Rs. 3,368.80 he was allowed that amount which was less than Rs. 7/- per sq. yard. The operative part of the judgment of this Court may be usefully reproduced below:--

''The appellants in this case have claimed Rs. 1,05,000/- including the arrears of interest plus 15% as compulsory acquisition charges. The appellants will he entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 7/- per sq. yard. Since they have paid Court-fee on the aforesaid amount, so they will be entitled to the amount calculated @ Rs. 7/- per sq. yard or the amount which has been claimed by them, whichever is less. The appellants will also be entitled to solatium @ 15% at the enhanced amount and also interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking of possession of land till the date of payment. Accordingly R. F. A. No. 422 of 1969 is accepted with costs.'

3. After the judgment of this Court, the petitioners filed an application for execution for obtaining Rs. 1,05,000/- plus 15% solatium and 6% interest as awarded by the High Court. The Executing Court by the impugned order found that the petitioners were only entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- inclusive of 15% solatium and 6% interest in view of the prayer made in the grounds of appeal, little caring for the operative part of the order of the High Court. It is also important to note that the State had deposited Rs. 1,98,700.99 in accordance with the order of the High Court which amount represented Rupees 1,05,000/- as enhanced compensation, 15% solatium and 6% interest from the date of taking possession till the payment.

4. The petitioners have come in this revision and it is urged that the order of the Executing Court is wholly illegal and erroneous and that the Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law for the reason that it has misread the operative part of the judgment of the High Court and the view taken by it is opposed to two Full Bench judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in R. D. Suryanarayana Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, AIR 1969 Andh Pra 55 and Kesireddi Appala Swamy v. Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada, AIR 1970 Andh Pra 139.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the sub-mission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. in the operative part of the order of the High Court, it is clearly mentioned that the appellants will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard but since they have paid Court-fee on the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-, they will be entitled to the amount to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard or the amount which has been claimed by them, that is, Rs. 1,05,000/-, whichever is less. After passing this order, it was further directed that the appellants will be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount (meaning thereby on the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- as admittedy it is less than the amount if it is claimed at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard) and also interest at the rate of 6% pet annum from the date of taking of possession of the land till the date of payment. The word payment' signifies the payment of enhanced amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- and interest had to be calculated on this amount according to the order of the High Court. It is true that in the prayer clause by inadvertence, instead of writing ''in addition to'' the amount' of Rs. 1,05,000/-, the word ''Including'' was mentioned.

6. In my view, the trial Court, even in the absence of the specific direction of the High Court, should not have laid importance on the prayer clause as according to law the Court-fee in appeal had to be paid on the amount of compensation sought to be enhanced and not on the amount of 15% solatium and 6% interest, to be claimed on the enhance amount. For the aforesaid view of mine, I find full support from the two Full Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In R. D. Suryanarayana Rao's case (supra), the Full Bench had ruled that on the amount of interest to be claimed on the enhanced amount no Court-fee is payable and in Kesireddi Appala Swamy (supra), it was ruled by the Full Bench that on the solatium no Court-fee' is payable. Accordingly, the petitioners were entitled to the enhanced compensation only to that extent on which the Court-fee of Rs. 3,368.80 was leviable, in addition to 15% solatium and 6% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation.

7. Mr. B. S. Malik, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, could not seriously challenge the view I am taking and the Full Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, referred to above.

8. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this revision, set aside the order of the Executing Court dated 6th of March, 1979, and direct that the petitioners claimants be paid in addition to Rupees 1,05,000/-, 15% solatium and 6% interest on the enhanced amount. Since the State has already deposited the amount of solatium and interest in addition to the sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- there will be no order as to costs of this revision.

9. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //