LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT. COMMNR. & ANR.versusSHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS.

                     [2010] 7 S.C.R. 833


    LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR.                    A
                               v.
          SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 4988-5047 etc. of 2010)

                        JULY 7, 2010
                                                                 B
         [AFTAB ALAM, SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Interest on solatium -
 Liability to pay - Decision in **Gurpreet Singh case, that
 interest on solatium could be claimed only in pending C
 executions and not in closed executions and the execution
 cowt would be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of
 judgment in *Sunder case (19.9.2001) and not prior to that
 date - Interpretation of words 'closed execution' in Paragraph
 54 of Gurpreet Singh** case and relevance of the date of D
 decision in *Sunder case - Held: If main proceeding arising
 from landowner's claim for enhanced compensation remains
 pending before civil court or at the appellate stage, it is not
 deemed to be closed even if the award/decree passed by
 collector/civil court was put to execution and payment E
 received by landowners in terms of award/decree - !)te
 stipulation that any interest on solatium can only be gefnted
 for period subsequent to the decision in *Sunder i.e.
  19. 9. 2001, does not circumscribe the power of the court
 dealing with the main proceeding relating to enhancement of F
 compensation and it is a limitation on the power of execution
 court.

       A Constitution Bench of this Court pronounced the
  judgment in *Sunder case on September 19, 2001 which
  settled the issue regarding the liability of payment of        G
  interest on the amount of solatium. The applicability of the
- decision in *Sunder case was explained and clarified in
  another Constitution Bench decision in **Gurpreet Singh
  case. It was explained that such interest on solatium
                             833                                 H
    834      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A could be claimed only in pending executions and not in
  "closed executions" and the execution court would be
  entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment
  in *Sunder (19.9.2001) and not prior to that date.

         The issues which arose for consideration in these
8
    groups of appeals viz. Groups A, B, C and D pertain to
    the interpretation of the term 'closed execution' as used
    in paragraph 54 of decision in **Gurpreet Singh case and
    the relevance of the date of decision in *Sunder case.

C         Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: (Group A) 1. The reference to "closed
  executions" in Para 54 of judgment in **Gurpreet Singh
  does not mean cases in which the main proceeding
0 arising from the landowner's claim for enhanced
  compensation remains pending before the civil court or
  at the appellate stage. It may sometimes happen that the
  award of the Collector or the decree of the civil court is
  put to execution and payments are made in terms of the
E award or the decree of the civil court and in that sense
  the award or the decree is satisfied. Nevertheless, an
  appeal against the award or the decree of the civil court
  may still remain pending either before the High Court or
  even before this Court. In appeal, the superior court may
  enhance the compensation which would lead to
F enhancement of solatium and consequently the interest
  on the additional amounts of compensation and solatium.
  In such a situation, the landowner/claimant would be
  bound to go back to the execution court for realisation
  of the additional amounts in terms of the modified decree.
G In such cases, the execution proceedings cannot be
  deemed to be closed and neither was it the intent of the
  observations in the decision in **Gurpreet Singh. The
  stipulation in the decision in **Gurpreet Singh that any
  interest on solatium can only be granted for the period
H
LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTI.COMMNR. & ANR. 835
       v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR
subsequent to September 19, 2001, the date of the· A
decision in *Sunder 7 it is evident that this again, was a
limitation on the power of the execution court. The
direction in no way circumscribes the power of the court
dealing with the main proceeding relating to
enhancement of the compensation. The matter can be B
looked at from another angle. The appeal being the
continuation of the original proceeding, in the facts of the
cases in this sub-group, there can be no question of
accrual of interest only after the date of the decision in
*Sunder. [Para 13] (842-D-H; 843-A-G]                        c
      **Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457
- held inapplicable.

      *Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 - referred
to.                                                             D

(Group 8)                                                           /.'



     2. State had made payment of interest on the amount- ·
of Solatium to the respondents-landowners. Interest wits
paid, however, up to the year 2002 and not up to E
September 11, 2005 when the actual payment was made.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed
to pay to the respective respondents/land owners the
balance amounts of interest on solatium for the period
from 2002 lo 11.9.2005. (Para 17, 19] (844-F-H; 845-D]      F

(Group C)

    3. In view of the orders passed in the cases in the
sub-groups B, all these Special Leave Petitions .are            G
dismissed. [Para 24) (846-B]

(Group 0)

   4. From the facts, it is manifest and clear that on
September 19, 2001 when the decision in *Sunder was             H
    836     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 7 S.C.R.


A rendered, the land acquisition proceedings (including the
  execution proceedings) were over and closed. The
  reference court had given its decision and the modified
  award was fully satisfied; all payments in terms of the
  award of the reference court were made to the
s landowners/claimants. After the decision in *Sunder, an
  appeal was filed against the judgment and award given
  by the reference court. That effort remained unsuccessful.
  Then a review petition was filed before the reference court
  and the matter was finally brought to the High Court in
c revision against the order passed by the reference court.
  It is, thus, patent that a concluded and closed proceeding
  was sought to be revived by the device of filing a review
  petition and then filing a revision against the order
  dismissing the review petition. This was plainly
  impermissible in view of the decision of this court in
0
  paragraph 54, in **Gurpreet Singh. [Para 33] [849-E-H; 850-
    A]
          Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457,
    held applicable.                                        '
E
                          Case law reference:
    (2006) 8 SCC 457 held inapplicable [Paras 1, 2, 11, 12,
                                       13]
F   (2001) 7 SCC 211 referred to              [Paras 1, 11, 13, 30]
                                                        /
                                                       /.
    (2006) 8 sec 457 held applicable          [Paras 17, 33, 34]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s).
    4988-5047 of 2010.
G
        From the Judgment & Order dated 01 .06.2004 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Civil Revision Petition Nos.,
    650, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1325, 1326, 1327,
    1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1336, 1337, 1338,
    1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1345, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1372, 1373,
H
  LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. 837
         v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR
  1374, 1375, 1376, 1377; 1378, 1379, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662,          A
  1663, 1664, 1666, 1668, 1670, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1878,
  1679, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690 and
  1691 of 2003.

                                  WITH                                 B
  C.A. Nos. 5052, 5053, 5054, 5058, 5057, 5055, 5056, 5061,
  5059, 5060, 5062, 5065, 5066, 5067 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos.
  20021, 20022, 20023 & 20024 of 2005, 5063, 5064, 5069,
  5068, 5048-5051 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 241 of 2006, 25015
  of 2005, S.L.P.(C) ... CC NO. 4641 of 2005, S.L.P. (C) ... CC NO.    C
  4646, S.L:P. (C) ... CC NO. 5375, S.L.P. (C) ... CC NO. 5402,
  S.L:.f~, (C) ... CC NO. 5505, S.L.P.(C) ... CCNO. 5521, S.L.P.
  (C) ... CCNO. 5831, S.L.P.(C) ... CC NO. 5835, S.L.P. (C) ... CC
' NO. 5841 of 2005, S.L.P. (C) ... CC NO. 5853, S.L.P. (C) ... CC
  NO. 5899. S.L.P. (C) ... CC NO. 5923, SLP (C) NO. 9504 of            D
  200'5.

      Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh,
  Ramesh Mishra, Rajesh Mahale, B. Subrahmanya Prasad,
  Ajay Kumar M., Ajit S Bhasme, Kiran Suri, S.J.Amith, Y. Raja         E
  Gopala Rao, Mohan V. Katarki, Javed Mahmud Rao for the
  Appearing parties.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. In all the cases in this large group,         F
  arising from land acquisition proceedings, the State of
  Karnataka is directed to pay interest on the amounts of
  solatium. The liability to pay interest on solatium stands settled
  by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sunder vs.
  Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. But Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,           G
  learned Standing Counsel for the State of Karnataka, the
  appellant in all the appeals, submitted that the question of
  applicability of the decision in Sunder was explained and
  clarified in another Constitution Bench decision of this Court
                                                                       H
    838     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A (delivered after the filing of these appeals) in Gurpreet Singh
  VS. Union of India, (2006) 8 sec 457. Relying upon paragraph
  54 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Hegde submitted that
  in cases where full payments were made in terms of the decree
  and the execution proceedings were consequently closed, the
B proceedings could not be re-opened and directions given for
  payment of interest on the basis of the decision in Sunder;
  further, any direction for payment of interest on solatium could
  only be for the period subsequent to the date of decision in
  Sunder(September 19, 2001). In other words, in cases where
c the full amounts of solatium were paid before September 19,
  2001, there would be no question of payment of any interest.
  He, therefore, submitted that all the cases should be remitted
  to the respective courts below to re-examine the claim of the
  landowners/claimants in light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh.
D       2. We see no reason to adopt the course suggested by
  Mr. Hegde. The facts of the cases before us are quite simple
  and it can be easily ascertained which of these cases, if any,
  are hit by the decision in Gurpreet Singh. Besides, all the cases
  are fairly old. An order of remand would simply start a fresh
E round of appeals and further appeals, and would keep the land-
  holders/claimants embroiled in litigation for an extended period.
  If we can, we would not like the landowners/claimants to suffer
  any· longer. If any landowner/claimant has a lawful claim, he must
  get it; otherwise, the matter must end here and now.
F
        3. On the basis of the respective facts, the appeals in this
  group can be divided into four sub-groups. And now we
  propose to deal with each sub-group separately.
      4. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that some
G cases belonging to different sub-groups enumerated herein
  below were earlier disposed of in piecemeal manner by order
  passed on March 25, 2010. Since all the cases in the different
  sub-groups are now being dealt within a consolidated manner,
  we recall the earlier order passed on March 25, 2010.
H
LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. 839
v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
                                  A                                 A
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5054, 5055, 5056, 5057, 5058, 5059,
5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5065, 5066, 5067, 5068 &
5069 OF 2010

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18518/2005,         B
18522/2005, 18523/2005, 18521/2005, 18519/2005, 18525/
2005, 18526/2005, 18524/2005, 18528/2005, 20027/2005,
20029/2005, 19786/2005, 19787/2005, 19788/2005, 23003/
2005, 22773/2005)
                                                                    c
     5. There are sixteen cases in this sub-group with identical
facts.

     6. Delay condoned.

     7. Leave granted.                                              D

      8. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appears on behalf of the
appellant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ms. Kiran
Suri, learned counsel represents the respondents landowners
in all the appeals in this sub-group.                               E

      9. The facts of the case, relevant for the present are very
simple and brief and may be stated thus. The possession of
the land coming under acquisition was taken over by the State
on August 14, 1989 even before the issuance of the preliminary
notification that came on January 3, 1992. The Land                 F
Acquisition Officer gave his award on October 13, 1993 fixing
compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. On reference
made under Section 18 of the Act, the civil court, by judgment
and order dated November 27, 1998 enhanced the
compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre. It also awarded               G
solatium@ 30%, additional market value@ 12% from the date
of dispossession till the date of the award and interest @ 9%
for the first year and 15% from the second year onwards till the
date of realisation. Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer
and the landowners/claimants filed their respective appeals         H
    840      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 7 S.C.R.

A against the order of the civil court. The appeal preferred by the
  Special Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed but the
  appeals of the landowners/claimants (MFAs in the High Court
  of Karnataka) came to be admitted. While the landowners
  appeals were pending before the Karnataka High Court, a
B Constitution Bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in
  Sunder which settled the issue regarding the liability of payment
  of interest on the amount of solatium. Later on, the appeals filed
  by the landowners were allowed by the Karnataka High Court
  by judgment and order dated March 31, 2003. The High Court
c further enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.60,000/- per
  acre fixed by the civil court to Rs.78,000/- per acre and in the ·
  operative portion (paragraph 14 of the judgment) directed as
  follows:-

          "Accordingly, we allow all these appeals in part. The
D         appellants/land owners are entitled to compensation of
          Rs.78,000/- per acre, along with the statutory benefits. The
          awards passed by the Reference Court under appeals
          accordingly shall stand modified. In the circumstances of
          the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
E
        10. Following the judgment of the High Court, the
  landowners once again went before the execution court for
  realisation of the additional amounts in terms of the High Court
  order. A copy of the execution petition along with the order sheet
F of the execution proceeding is produced before us, that leave
  no room for doubt that though payments in terms of the decree
  passed by the civil court were made earlier, execution
  proceedings commenced afresh directly in pursuance of the
  judgment and order passed by the High Court in the
G landowners'/claimants' appeals and the decree/award modified
  on that basis.
        11. In light of the above facts, we now examine the
    objection raised by Mr. Hegde relying upon the observations
    and directions made in paragraph 54 of the Constitution bench
H
 LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. 841
v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
decision in Gurpreet Singh. Paragraph 54 of the decision is            A
as follows:

     "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             B
     pending in Courts all over the country, we permitted
     counsel to address us on that question. That question is
     whether in the light of the decision in Sunder vs. Union of
     India (2001) 7 SCC 211, the awardee/decree-holder
     would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution      C
     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 implication by the judgment or
     decree of the reference court or of the appellate court, the      D
     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 decre~. But if the
     award of the reference court or that of the appellate court
     does not specifically refer to the question of interest on        E
     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         F
     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 a/so clarify that
     such interest on solatium c;an be claimed only in pending
     executions and not in closed executions and the                   G
     execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from
     the date of the judgment in Sunder (19-9-01) and not for
     any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any
     reappropriation or fresh .3ppropriation by the decree-
     holder. This we have indicJted by way of clarification also       H
    842       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 7 S.C.R


A         in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the
          Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of
          litigation on this question."

                                                 (emphasis added)
B         12. Relying upon the portion shown in italics in the above
  quoted passage, Mr. Hegde argued that in these cases the
  amount of solatium as determined by the civil court was paid
  long before September 19, 2001, following which the execution
  proceeding was closed and hence, no liability of any interest
C on the amount of solatium could be fastened upon the State in
  light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh.

          13. We are unable to accept the submission and in our
    view the decision in Gurpreet Singh has no application to the
o   facts of the present cases. In paragraph 54 of the decision in
    Gurpreet Singh's case, the Court was considering the scope
    of execution proceedings and the limitations of the execution
    court. The three lines relied upon by Mr. Hegde must be read
    and understood in the context of what is said earlier. The Court
E   clearly said that the execution court could not go beyond the
    decree. In the event, the claim of interest was rejected expressly
    or by necessary implication in the decree, it would not be
    permissible for the execution court to grant interest relying upon
    the decision in Sunder. But, even then the Court went on to
    clarify that if the award of the reference court or the appellate
F   court was silent on the issue of solatium and interest then it
    would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder
    and say that the compensation awarded would include solatium
    and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed
    to be deposited in execution. The decision in Gurpreet Singh,
G   thus, actually enlarged the scope of execution proceeding, in
    a certain way, on the basis of the decision in Sunder. Coming
    now to the passage specially relied upon by Mr. Hegde, we do
    not have the slightest doubt that the reference to "closed
    executions" does not mean cases in which the main proceeding
H   arising from the landowner's claim for enhanced compensation
LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTI.COMMNR. & ANR. 843
v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
remains pending before the civil court or at the appellate stage. A
It may sometimes happen, as illustrated by this case that the
award of the Collector or the decree of the civil court is put to
execution and payments are made in terms of the award or the
decree of the civil court and in that sense the award or the
decree is satisfied. Nevertheless, an appeal against the award B
or the decree of the civil court may still remain pending either
before the High Court or even before this Court. In appeal, the
superior court may enhance the compensation which would lead
to enhancement of solatium and consequently the interest on
the additional amounts of compensation and solatium. In such        c
a situation, the landowner/claimant would be bound to go back
to the execution court for realisation of the additional amounts
in terms of the modified decree. In such cases, the execution
proceedings cannot be deemed to be closed and neither was
 it the intent of the observations in paragraph 54 of the decision
                                                                      0
in Gurpreet Singh. Coming now to the stipulation that any
interest on solatium can only be granted for the period
 ~ubsequent to September 19, 2001, the date of the decision
 in Sunder, it is evident that this again, is a limitation on the
 power of the execution court. The direction is actually referable
 to those cases in which the award of the reference court or the
                                                                      E
 appellate court being silent, it is left open to the execution court
to give direction for the deposit of interest on solatium. In such
cases, the reference court can ask for interest only for the
period subsequent to September 19, 2001. The direction in no
 way circumscribes the power of the court dealing with the main F
proceeding relating to enhancement of the compensation. The
matter can be looked at from another angle. The appeal being
the continuation of the original proceeding, in the facts of the
 cases in this sub-group, there can be no question of accrual of
 interest only after the date of the decision in Sunder. At this G
 stage, it may be recalled that the civil court had awarded
 solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for the first year and @
 15% from second year onwards till the date of realisation. The
 State's appeal against the judgment '."If the civil court was
 dismissed. Thus, the direction for payment of solatium with
    844     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A interest at the rates indicated had become final. The High Court
  enhanced the rate of compensation. This would inevitably lead
  to an increase in the amount of solatium and consequently in
  the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of solatium. Thus,
  looked at from any point of view, the question of payment of
B interest subsequent to September 19, 2001 does not arise.

         14. For the reasons discussed above, we see no merit in
    these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed but
    with no order as to costs.

c        15. For any grievance with regard to calculation of the
    amounts of solatium or interest, it will be open to the appellant,
    the Special Land Acquisition Officer to raise his objections, if
    otherwise permissible in law.

D                                     8
    SLP ........... CC Nos.4641 of 2005, 4646 of 2005 and SLP
    CC Nos.5375 of 2005.

       16. These three Special Leave Petitions were filed beyond
E the period of limitation. In SLP ..... (CC) No.4641 of 2005, there
  is delay of 158 days, in SLP .... (CC) No.4646 of 2005, there
  is delay of 219 days and in SLP ...... (CC) No.5375 of 2005,
  there is delay of 187 days.

F      17. Mr. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
  respondents-landowners stated that after filing the SLPs, the
  State had made payment of interest on the amount of solatium
  to the respondents-landowners. In SLP ..... (CC) No.4641 of
  2005, the amount of interest paid to the land owner/respondent
  was Rs.41,236/-, in SLP ..... (CC) No.4646 of 2005, Rs.50,752/
G - and in SLP ..... (CC) No. 5375 of 2005 it was Rs.41,236/-.
  Interest was paid, however, up to the year 2002 and not up to
  September 11, 2005 when the actual payment was made.
  Hence, according to the respondent-landowners, the amount of
  interest for the period 2002 to September 11, 2005 still remains
H unpaid. The amounts that remain unpaid are much smaller than
 LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTI.COMMNR. & ANR. 845
v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
the amounts that were paid to the landowners/claimants, as            A
indicated above.

     18. Mr. Patil further stated that these three SLPs before
us are out of a batch of 20 similar cases. Learned counsel gave
us a tabular chart giving the details of all the 20 cases that were
                                                                      B
disposed of by the High Court under different MFA Nos. In this
Chart, the l'Jresent SLPs figure at s~'rial nos. 11, 15 and 13.
He further informed us that the SLPs arising from the cases at
serial nos. 1O and 16 were earlier dismissed by this Court, one
[SLP ..... (CC) No.1611/2005] on the ground of limitation alone       C
and other [SLP ..... (CC) No.3929/2005] both on the ground of
delay and on merits.

     19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no
reason to interfere in these matters. The Special Leave
Petitions are dismissed, both on grounds of delay and on merits       D
with the direction to the petitioner to pay to the respective
respondents/land owners the balance amounts of interest on
solatium for the period from 200,2 to 11.9.2005.

    20. The observations and directions of the High Court in
                                                                      E
regard to any differences in calculation remain undistudled.

    SLP ..... (CC) Nos.5505, 5521, 5831, 5835, 5853, 5841,
5899 and 5923 of 2005.

     21. In view of the order passed in SLP ...... (CC) Nos.4641      F
nf 2005 etc. etc., these Special Leave Petitions are also
dismissed both on the grounds of delay and on merits. The
observations and directions of the High Court in regard to any
differences in calculation remain undisturbed.

                                c                                     G

SLP (C) No.9504/2005, SLP (C) No.25015/2005, SLP ..... (CC)
No.5402/2005, SLP (C) No.241/2006, SLP (C) No.20021/
2005, SLP (C) No.20023/2005, SLP (C) No.20022/2005, SLP
(C) No.20024/2005                                                     H
    846       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 7 S.C.R.


A         22. SLP (C) No. 9504/2005 is within time.

          23. Delay condoned in rest of the matters.

       24. In view of the orders passed in the cases in the
  preceding sub-groups, all these Special Leave Petitions are
B to be dismissed subject to the observation that in case of any
  grievance in regard to calculations, it will be open to the
  petitioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer to raise his
  objections, if otherwise permissible in law.

c        25. It may also be added that accrual of interest will cease
    on the date the full amount of solatium is paid along with the
    interest accrued on it.

                                   D

D CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4988-5047, 5048-5051, 5052 & 5053
  OF 2010

    (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25319-25378 of 2004, 23075-
    23078/2005, 12386/2006 & 1801/2007).
E         26. Leave granted.

        27. We finally come to sub-group, to which at least the
    submission of Mr. Hegde, based on the decision in Gurpreet
    Singh seems to fully apply.
F
       28. The facts of the cases in this sub-group are as brief
  and simple as in the earlier sub-groups. In the Collector's award
  made on August 20, 1997, the market value of the acquired
  lands was fixed @ Rs.21,500/- per acre (Kharab land @
G Rs.400/acre). Against the award of the Collector, 20 references
  came to be made under section 18 of the Act at the instance
  of the aggrieved landowners/claimants. All the 20 reference
  cases were decided by a common judgment and order dated
  November 30, 1998 passed by Civil Judge and Additional
  CJM, Koppal, in LAC No.44of1998 and analogous cases. The
H
  LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. 847
 v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR [AfTAB ALAM, J.]
                                .   .    -
 civil court enhanced the market value of the subject lands from        A
 Rs.21,500/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre. It also held the
 claimants entitled to solatium at 30% of the market value along
 with the additional market value at 12% per annum from the date
 of taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 to the
 date of the award on August 20, 1997. It further held the              8
 claimants entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date
 of taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 for the
 first year and after that from January 12, 1995 @ 15% till the
 date of full and final payment of the compensation. What is
 relevant for the present, however, is that the civil court expressly   C
 rejected the landowners' claim for interest on so/atium
 observing as follows:

      ''The Claimants are not entitled for interest on solatium and
      additional market value in view of the case law reported
      in 1996 (2) SCC 71 (Premnath Kapoor and another vs.               D
      National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., and others.)."

       29. Apparently no one took the decision of the civil court
       any further and the matter was allowed to rest at that stage.

        30. On September 19, 2001 came the decision of the              E
"' Constitution Bench of this court in Sunder and then an appeal
   (MFA No.837 of 2002) was filed against the judgment and order
   passed by the Civil Court on November 30, 1998. The appeal,
   when it was filed, was barred by limitation by 1072 days. It is
   also not denied that long before the filing of the appeal or even    F
   before the judgment in Sunder came on September 19, 2001,
   the claimants had received all the payments in terms of the
   judgment and award given by the civil court.

      31. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal         G
  by order dated March 20, 2002 observing as follows:

       "6. The only ground urged by the appellants in their appeals
       is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguishing its earlier
       judgment in the case of PREMNATH KAPOOR & ANR.
                                                                        H
    848       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A         VS. NATIONAL FERTILISER CORPORATION OF INDIA
          LTD., & Ors. Reported in 1996 (2) SCC 72, has held in
          Sunder vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (6) SCALE
          405, that a claimant is entitled to compensation under the
          Land Acquisition Act shall also be entitle to get interest on
B         the aggregate amounts including solatium. In the said
          decision a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has
          decided the question referred to the Bench as to whether
          the State is liable to pay interest on solatium under
          Sec.23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the said
          question has been answered in the affirmative.
c
          7. Therefore, it appears that the appellants who never
          intended to challenge the awards were made to file the
          appeals after the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
          Court. Thus no ground is made out by the appellants for
D         condonation of such exorbitant delay. The appellants could
          have sought review of the order before the reference Court
          in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

        32. Taking advantage of the remark that in view of the
E decision in Sunder, the landowners/claimants might have
  moved the reference court in review, as many as 36 review
  petitions came to be filed before the civil court. All those review
  petitions were dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
  Koppa! by order dated January 2, 2003 passed in Misc. Case
  No.30/202 and analogous cases. The Civil Judge found that
F the case set up for condonation of the huge delay was palpably
  false and further that the review petitions were not maintainable
  and there were no reasonable grounds to review its judgment
  and award dated November 30, 1998.

G      33. Against the order of the civil court, the landowners/
  claimants came in revision before the High Court. A very large
  number of revisions (59 in all) were clubbed together for hearing
  before a division bench of the Karnataka High Court. All the
  revisions were finally allowed by judgment and order dated June
H 1, 2004 in Civil Revision Petition No.650 of 2003 and other
   LAND ACQN. OFFICER & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR. 849
  v. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
  analogous cases. The High Court did not allow either the long           A
  (and unexplained) delay or the earlier rejection of the claimants'
  appeal by a single judge of the court against the judgment of
  the civil court in section 18 references, or the fact that the
  claimants had received all payments in terms of the court's
  order long before the decision in Sunder was given by this              B
  court, stand in their way in claiming interest on the amounts of
  solatium and additional market value. The long and erudite
  judgment passed by the High Court is full of kind sentiments
  for the revision petitioners whose lands were compulsorily
  acquired by the Government and is also supported by good                c
  legal reasoning. The High Court decision was given long before
  the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Gurpreet Singh.
   But when it comes up for consideration before us in this appeal
  the decision in Gurpreet Singh is very much there. We do not
   know how we would have responded to the judgment of the                D
   High Court, had it come before us, without the intervening
  decision of this Court in Gurpeet Singh. But the Constitution
   Bench decision is as much binding on us, as on the High Court.
  And, when tested against the decision in Gurpreet Singh, the
   High Court judgment coming under appeal appears to be
   plainly untenable. The High Court decision seeks to do exactly
                                                                          E -
  what is held impermissible in Gurpreet Singh. From the facts
   noted above, it is manifest and clear that on September 19,
   2001 when the decision in Sunder was rendered, the land
   acquisition proceedings (including the execution proceedings)
   were over and closed. The reference court had _given its               F
   decision and the modified award was fully satisfied; all
   payments in terms of the award of the reference court were
   made to the landowners/claimants. After the decision in
   Sunder, an appeal was filed against the judgment and award
   given by the reference court. That effort remained unsuccessful.       G
   Then a review petition was filed before the reference court and
· the matter was finally brought to the High Court in revision
   against the order passed by the reference court. It is, thus,
   patent that a concluded and closed proceeding was sought to
   be revived by the device of filing a review petition and then filing   H
    850      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 ((2010] 7 S.C.R.


A   a revision against the order dismissing the review petition. This
    was plainly impermissible in view of the decision of this court
    in paragraph 54, in Gurpreet Singh.

        34. On behalf of the respondents-landowners/claimants, it
  was sought to be argued that the decision in Gurpreet Singh
8
  imposed limitations on the power of the execution court but it
  did not restrict the power of the High Court in exercise of its
  revisional jurisdiction. We are unable to accept the submission.
  The order passed by the civil court, dismissing the review
C petition was wholly in accordance with the view taken by this
  court in Gurpreet Singh. The High Court order, reversing the
  order of the civil court and allowing the claim of the respondehts
  led to a result disapproved by this court.                  ,.

       35. Thus, when looked at from any angle, the High Court
D decision coming under appeal is untenable. We are, therefore,
  constrained to interfere in the matter and set aside the
  judgment of the division bench of the Karnataka High Court
  coming under appeal.

E       36. The appeals in this sub-group are allowed but with no
    order as to costs.

    D.G.                                     Appeals disposed of.