Siri Chand v. Union of India

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 08, 2019 "gsr/bs" (corrected & released on 20th March, 2019)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 8th March, 2019. + LA.APP. 333/2014 SIRI CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. On 17th July, 2018, after hearing the counsels the following order was passed: "1. This proceeding, though was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was vide order dated 14th July, 2014 converted into this appeal. 2. The challenge in this proceeding is to the order dated 7th October, 2011 of dismissal of Execution No.176/2011 preferred by the petitioner / appellant. 3. The petitioner / appellant, in the Execution which has been dismissed vide the impugned order, claimed interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. The counsels have been heard. 5. What emerges is, (i) that Section 4 Notification for acquisition of the land of the petitioner / appellant was issued on 27th January, 1984; (ii) on 16th July, 1986, the Award was published awarding compensation @ Rs.13000/- per bigha; (iii) on reference under Section 18 having been made by the petitioner / appellant, the Reference Court, vide judgment dated 1st May, 1995 enhanced the compensation to Rs.36,400/- per bigha; (iv) RFA No.974/1995 was preferred by the petitioner / appellant to this Court seeking further enhancement and vide judgment dated 2nd November, 1998 therein, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.47,224/- per bigha; (v) the petitioner / appellant applied for execution on 18th September, 2001 and which execution was closed on 18th December, 2009 on the compensation with other dues being released in favour of the petitioner / appellant; (vi) the petitioner / appellant filed a second round of execution proceedings from which this petition / appeal arises, claiming interest on solatium and additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act; (vii) the impugned order holds the petitioner / appellant to be not entitled to the same inter alia reasoning that as per para 54 of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, interest on solatium was to be awarded only in "pending executions" and since the Execution earlier filed by the petitioner / appellant stood closed on 18th December, 2009, the same could not be awarded; reliance in this regard was also placed on Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalpur (2010) 12 SCC 387; (viii) Section 23(1A) was added to the Act by amendment thereof with effect from 24th September, 1984; (ix) the element of interest on solatium came into force vide Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 pronounced on 19th September, 2001; (x) neither the judgment of the Reference Court nor the judgment in appeal provide for any such payment as now claimed by the petitioner / appellant; without the same, payment in execution cannot be ordered(xi) however Gurpreet Singh supra allowed such claims to be made in cases where interest on solatium had not been declined in the judgment and where the Execution was pending but clarifying that the interest were to be awarded w.e.f. 19th September, 2001 only and not for any period prior thereto; and, (xii) as far as the additional amount under Section 23(1A) is concerned, a direction therefor was made in the judgment dated 2nd November, 1998 in RFA No.974/1995. 6. The counsel for the petitioner / appellant however has no explanation as to why additional amount under Section 23 (1A) was not sought to be recovered in execution filed on 18th September, 2001 and which was closed only on 18th December, 2009. 7. As far as interest on solatium is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner / appellant states that though the petitioner / appellant, w.e.f. 19th September, 2001 when Sunder supra was pronounced, was entitled thereto but it was not pa