Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 25 of 2018 Revisionist :- Moti Lal (Since Deceased) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate Counsel for Revisionist :- Lal Mani Singh,Raghuvir Sharan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Srikant
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6 Kanpur Nagar in Execution Case No.3 of 2016. This Execution Case have been filed to execute the award of the reference Court in Reference Case No. 14/17/1889 (Moti Lal and anothers Vs. State of U.P. and anothers) u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The contention of Sri Lal Mani Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist is that against the award of the reference Court, a First Appeal was filed before this Court, in which an interim order was passed, directing the appellant, Awavas Vikas Parishad to deposit 50 % of the compensation awarded, within the period of three months. This 50% amount was, infact, deposited within the time granted. However, the High Court, while dismissing the aforesaid First Appeal, did not issue any directions as to the manner in which the amount deposited was to be appropriated. Thus, its appropriation was required to be made strictly in accordance with the manner prescribed by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, 2006(8) SCC 457.
It has been submitted that the amount deposited under the circumstances should have been appropriated first towards the interest accrued, then towards cost and lastly towards the principle. This has not been done and, therefore, the order impugned is, vitiated.
Sri Srikant, learned counsel for the Avas Vikas Parishad has submitted that the calculation has been made by the Executing Court in the manner prayed for by the revisionist himself. Since, the revisionist's contention was accepted by the Court below, it is not open for him to challenge the impugned order.
He has however, submitted that the Executing Court has erred manifestly in not making the calculations strictly in accordance with the operative portion of the order passed by the Reference Court.
He submits that the interest to which the revisionist decree holder was entitled was only on the enhanced compensation and not on the total compensation awarded.
Since, both parties contend that the order impugned is vitiated although, on different grounds, this revision is liable to be allowed. Besides, the contention of the respondent the calculation was made as demanded by the revisionist is not liable to be accepted as there is no estoppel against the statute.
Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 5.12.2017 and remand the matter back to the Executing Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law.
It is also provided that the objection raised on behalf of Avas Vikas Parishad, before this Court, may also be adequately dealt with by the Executing Court while, passing final orders in pursuance of this order.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Neeraj Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.08.01 10:33:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad