Union Of India v. Badal Chandra Das

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_ CRP No.134 of 2015 The Union of India to be represented by Assistant Defence Estates Officer, Lichibagan, P.O - Salbagan, P.S. - New Capital Complex, Agartala - 12.

............... Petitioner.

- Vs - Shri Badal Chandra Das, S/O Late Umesh Chandra Das, Resident of D C nagar, P.S - Lefunga, P.O - Lembuchara, West Tripura.

................... Respondent.

_B_E_F_O_R_E_ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA For the petitioner : Mr. A Lodh, Advocate, Mr. S Debnath, Advocate.

For the respondent : None.

Date of hearing & judgment : 18.11.2015.

Whether fit for reporting :

Yes No √ JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 7th April, 2015 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.Ex(M) 79 of 2012.

2.

According to the claimant, he is entitled to interest on the amount of solatium as per the law laid down in Sundar Vrs. CRP No.134 of 2015 Page 1 of 4

Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 whereas the case of the Union of India is that no specific interest has been awarded on the amount of solatium and therefore, the interest on the solatium shall be payable only w.e.f 19.9.2001 when Sundar's case was decided. 3.

This Court has earlier decided this issue and this Court has interpreted the judgment in Gurpreet Singh Vrs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 in the following terms : "[7] The gist of the judgment of the Apex Court is as follows : (1) Since the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree if the land reference Judge has rightly or wrongly specifically rejected the prayer for grant of interest on solatium then the Executing Court cannot grant such interest.

(2) If the Land Acquisition Judge has specifically granted interest on solatium then it is payable from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, 1894.

(3) The Apex Court further held that there were a large number of cases where there is no specific reference to interest payable on solatium. There may also be cases where claim for interest on solatium had not been made and, therefore, there was no question of accepting or rejecting such a claim. In these cases the Apex Court held that the executing Court was free to follow the judgment of Sunder(supra) and grant interest on solatium but with the caveat that in such cases the interest would be awarded only from 19.09.2001 i.e. the date when Sunder's case was decided.

(4) The Apex Court also made it clear that the executing Court could award interest on solatium only in CRP No.134 of 2015 Page 2 of 4

pending executions and where the execution proceedings had been disposed of, the matter could not be re-opened."

4.

It is contended by Mr. Lodh that in the present case no specific interest on solatium has been awarded and therefore, the interest should only be awarded from 19.9.2001. 5.

The relevant portion of the award of the Land Acquisition Judge reads as follows :

"6.

..............................In all the cases, the claimants would get compensation at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per kani of the land acquired. In addition, 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter and till the realization of the entire amount, the claimants are also entitled to be paid............"

A perusal of the aforesaid portion of award of the Land Acquisition Judge makes it amply clear that the Land Acquisition Judge held that the claimants were entitled to market value of the land and also solatium @ 30% on the market value of the land. The Land Acquisition Judge also held that in addition to the market value and solatium the claimant was entitled to interest on the "entire amount".

6.

In my view, the words "entire amount" would include both the market value as well as the solatium and therefore, the Land Acquisition Judge has awarded interest on solatium. As such I CRP No.134 of 2015 Page 3 of 4

find no error in the award of the learned executing Court and the petition is, accordingly, rejected.

CHIEF JUSTICE CRP No.134 of 2015 Page 4 of 4