Supreme Court of India
CHHANGA SINGH AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 206
- Decided
- 8 May 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHANS KHEHAR
Holding
An awardee under the Land Acquisition Act is entitled to interest on the solatium in pending execution proceedings unless the decree expressly denies such interest, and the interest is payable from the date of the Sunder judgment.
Summary
The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and they were awarded compensation and a solatium by the Reference Court in 2001, but no interest was granted on the solatium. During execution proceedings they claimed interest on the solatium, which the execution court and the High Court rejected. The Supreme Court examined whether interest on solatium could be claimed when the decree does not expressly deny it, relying on the earlier decisions in Sunder v. Union of India and Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India. It held that, absent an express denial, the execution court may award interest on the solatium in pending executions, calculated from the date of the Sunder judgment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to pay the interest on the solatium within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether an awardee under the Land Acquisition Act is entitled to interest on the solatium amount when the decree does not expressly provide for such interest.
- Whether the execution court can award interest on solatium despite the decree’s silence on the matter.
- From which date the interest on solatium may be calculated.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 4, s. 6
Subjects
interest on solatiumland acquisitionexecution of decreestatutory interestreference courtSunder caseGurpreet Singh case
Judgment
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 275
CHHANGA SINGH AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4322 of 2012)
MAY 08, 2012
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Interest on solatium -
Entitlement to - Reference Court awarded solatium as
provided under the Act - But did not award interest on the C
amount of solatium - Claim by appellants-landowners for
interest on solatium during execution proceedings -
Tenability of - Held: Tenable - Respondents directed to make
payment of interest on solatium as per the law laid down in
Gurpreet Singh case. D
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457:
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 422 - followed.
Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner &
Anr. v. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 387; E
2010 (7) SCR 833; Nadirsha Shapurji Patel (dead) by Lrs. &
Ors. v. Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.
(2010) 13 SCC 234: 2010 (15) SCR 516 and lyasamy & Anr.
v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (2010) 10 SCC 464:
2010 (12) SCR 489 - relied on. F
Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211: 2001 (3)
Suppl. SCR 176 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
G
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 176 referred to Para 3, 6
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 422 followed Para 6
2010 (7) SCR 833 relied on Para 7
275 HI
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 2010 (15) SCR 516 relied on Para 7
2010 (12) SCR 489 relied on Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4322 of 2012.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.9.2008 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. Main Petition bearing
Civil Misc. (Main) No. 196 of 2007.
Naresh Kaushik, Sanjeev Kumar Bhardwaj, Aditi Gupta,
C Lalita Kaushik for the Appellant.
A. Sharan, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya (for
Saharya & Co.), Rekha Pandey, Asha G. Nair, B.V. Bairam
Das, Sadashiv Reddy, Sushma Suri for the Respondent.
D The Order of the Courtwas delivered
ORDER
1. Leave granfed.
E 2. The controversy in this appeal lies in a very narrow
compass. The sole issue involved herein is as to whether the
appellants are entitled for interest over the amount of solatium
granted to them.
F 3. Admitted facts necessary to adjudicate upon the
controversy in this appeal are that:
I. The land of the appellants stood notified under
Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter being referred to as 'the Act") on 30th
G
October, 1963. In respect of the said land,
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made
on 16th January, 1969.
II. Compensation was awarded under Section 11 of
H the Act on 17th September, 1986 assessing the
CHHANGA SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 277
AND ANR.
market value of the land @ Rs.4350 per bigha. A
Being aggrieved, the appellants made an
application for reference under Section 18 of the
Act, and the Reference Court vide award dated 1st
June, 2001 assessed the market value of the land
@Rs.16,750/- per bigha and awarded the solatium B
as provided under the Act. However, interest was
not awarded on the amount of solatium and it
restricted only to the enhanced amount of
compensation.
Ill. The appellants filed the execution petition on 3rd
c
September, 2001.
IV. It was during the pendency of the execution
proceedings, this Court decided the matter in
Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 on D
19th September, 2001 explaining that persons-
interested like the appellants are also entitled for
interest on amount of solatium.
4. So far as this case is concerned, the respondents E
made the payment as per the award of the Reference Court
dated 1st June, 2001 on 15th April, 2004 partly. The appellants
filed an application on 6th May, 2004 for claiming the balance
amount including the interest on solatium. The Execution Court
rejected the said application vide order dated 22nd November,
F
2006 which was challenged unsuccessfully before the High
Court by the appellants as the High Court rejected their claim
for the said relief vide impugned judgment and order dated 10th
September, 2008.
Hence, this appeal. G
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through various judgments.
6. However, learned counsel for the appellants have
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A placed a very heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Gurpreet_ Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, wherein
the legal position in this regard has been explained as under:
"54. One other question also was sought to be raised and
B 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
c solatium in execution though 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
D 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
E 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
F awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to
apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the 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
G 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:cor
H fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have
CHHANGA SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 279
AND ANR.
indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our A
power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of
India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this
question."
While deciding the said case, this Court has considered
8
and explained the judgment in Sunder (Supra).
7. The view taken by the Constitution Bench has
consistently been re-iterated and followed by this Court as is
evident from the judgments in Land Acquisition Officer and
Assistant Commissioner & Anr. v. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur C
& Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 387; Nadirsha Shapurji Patel (dead)
by Lrs. & Ors. v. Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer
& Anr. (2010) 13 SCC 234; and lyasamy & Anr. v. Special
Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (2010) 10 SCC 464.
D
8. In view of the above, the submissions of the appellants
are worth acceptance. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
respondents are directed to make the payment of interest on
the solatium as per the law laid down in Gurpreet Singh (Supra)
within a period of three months from today.
E
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "interest on solatium"Sign in to search