This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2017 passed in C.F.R.No.5544 of 2016 in E.P.No.80 of 2011 in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1992 by the learned First Additional Sub Court, Erode.
2. By the impugned order, the petitioner / judgment debtor was directed to deposit the claim amount within a period of one month, failing which, further action will be taken in the execution petition. The petitioner / judgment debtor / Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition - Neighbourhood Scheme), Erode, in this Civil Revision Petition is in the fourth round of litigation, on the very same subject between the very same parties. Pursuant to the land acquisition, compensation was awarded in favour of the respondents / decree holders. On appeal, the award amount was enhanced at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq.ft. Against which, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.965 of 2004, wherein the award was modified and the land cost was fixed at Rs.5/- per sq.ft and the award of interest ordered by the Court below was confirmed.
3. Against the appropriation of the deposit made by the revision petitioner towards interest was questioned in CRP (NPD) No.25 of 2016. This Court, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GURPREET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [2007 (3) CTC 170] has held that appropriation shall be first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal amount due under the decree.
4. On the next round of litigation, the requisitioning body has challenged the award of interest on the solatium. According to the requisitioning body, the award of interest shall be based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA [2001 SUPPL. (3) S.C.R. 176 - decided on 19.09.2001] and the interest can be calculated only from 19.09.2001 and not otherwise. This Court, by its order dated 20.01.2016 has dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and upheld the order passed by the Executing Court. Thereafter, the respondents have filed an execution application claiming a sum of Rs.60,39,737/- as calculated as hereunder:
rJuo U:/5-? tPjk; 2.37.402-? rJu mof;F (5/45 Vf;fh;) epyj;jpd; kjpg;g[ U:/ 11.87.010/00 ku';fs; kjpg;g[ U:/ 1.000/00 bkhj;jk;
U:/ 11.88.010/00 30# ,Hg;gPl;lhw;wut[ bjhif U:/ 3.56.403/00 ???????????????
U:/ 15.44.413/00 U:/15.44.413-?f;F 06/08/1980 Kjy; 23/09/1986k; njjp tiu 12# TLjy; ec&;l <l;Lj; bjhif U:/ 11.36.173/00 ???????????????
bkhj;jk;
U:/ 26.80.586/00 nfhhpf;;ifahsh;fs; vjph;khDjhuh;fsplk; nehpilahf bgw;Wf; bfhz;l bjhif U:/ 4.39.165/00 ???????????????
kPjpa[s;s bjhif U:/ 22.41.421/00 U:/22.41.421-?f;F 06/10/1989 Kjy; 05/10/1990k; njjp tiu 9# tPjk; tl;oj; bjhif U:/ 2.01.728/00 ???????????????
bkhj;jk;
U:/ 24.43.149/00 U:/22.41.421-?f;F 06/10/1990 Kjy; 10/12/2002k; njjp tiu 15# tl;oj; bjhif U:/ 40.94.328/00 ???????????????
bkhj;jk;
U:/ 65.37.477/00 brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;go vjph;kDjhuh; 10/12/2002k; njjpapy; itg;gPL bra;j bjhif U:/ 30.00.000/00 kPjpa[s;s bjhif U:/ 35.37.477/00 U:/22.41.421-?f;F 11/12/2002 Kjy; 24/04/2012k; njjp tiu 15# tl;oj; bjhif U:/ 31.50.130/00 bkhj;jk;
U:/ 66.87.607/00 vjph;kDjhuh; ,Wjpahf 24/04/2012k; njjpapy; rK:fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL bra;Js;s bjhif U:/ 9.66.338/00 ???????????????
U:/ 57.21.269/00 U:/22.41.421-?f;F 25/04/2012 Kjy; 06/04/2013k; njjp tiu 15# tl;oj; bjhif U:/ 3.18.468/00 ???????????????
vjph;kDjhuh; brYj;j ntz;oa ghf;fpj; bjhif U:/ 60.39.737/00 ???????????????
5. Per contra, the revision petitioner has filed a counter statement in the execution petition and filed a memo of calculation as under: OBJECTION MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE CALCULATION FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS
1. Extent of land acquired in the above LAOP No.7/86 :
5.38 Acress (or) 234353 Sq.ft @ Erode 'C' Village
2. Date of Publication of 4(1) notification under Land Acquisition Act :
29.10.80 (Local publication instead of 06.08.80 published in Gazette
3. Date of Award (Special Tahsildar) :
Award No.7/86 dated 23.09.86
4. Date of taken possession :
06.10.89
5. Date of Civil Court Award (Addl. Subordinate Judge, Erode) :
20.08.99
6. Cost of Lands acquired as per award of High Court, Madras in its judgment dated 15.04.2010 in A.S.No.965/2004 @ Rs.5/-Sq.ft. 234353 Sq.ft x Rs.5/-
:
Rs.11,71,765.00 Tree Value :
ADD additional compensation as per sec.23(2) of L.A.Act at 12% on Rs.11,72,765/- from the date of $ 4(1) Locality notification (not to the date of Gazette notification to date of award i.e.from 29.10.80 to 23.09.86 (2155 days) :
Rs.10,38,620.00
9. Total of columns (6) + (7) + (8) above :
Rs.25,63,215.00
10. Deduct amount already paid by Special Tahsildar :
Rs. 4,39,166.00 Balance Land Value :
Rs.21,24,049.00
11. ADD interest at 9% for one year from 06.10.89 to 05.10.90 :
Rs. 1,91,164.00
12. ADD interest at 15% period from 06.10.90 to 10.12.2002 (4445 days) :
Rs.38,80,027.00
13. Balance as on 10.12.2002 :
Land Value Interest Total Rs.21,24,049.00 Rs.40,71,191.00 =Rs.61,95,240.00
14. DEDUCT:
Amount deposited on 10.12.2002 Rs.30,00,000/-
:
(-) (-) Rs.21,24,049.00 Rs.8,75,951.00 15. Balance as on 10.12.2002 : - Rs.31,95,240.00 16. No further interest on interest : - Total Due (Only interest) : Rs.31,95,240.00 17. DEDUCT:
Amount deposited on 24.04.12 (as per judgment in A.S.No.965/04 dt.15.04.10) :
-
(-) Rs.14,07,042.00
18. Balance as on 24.04.2012 :
Rs.17,88,198.00 No interest on interest for further period. Amount to be paid as interest as on 24.04.12 Land Value fully settled interest alone is out-standing :
Rs.17,88,198.00
6. The Executing Court has rejected the memo of calculation filed by the revision petitioner and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount calculated in the execution petition within a month. Challenging the docket order passed by the Executing Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
7. From a comparative reading of the claim made and a reading of the calculation made by the respective parties will make the issue clear. The revision petitioner has deducted the deposit made by them from the principal and thereafter, deducted the balance amount payable towards interest. As per the calculation, the District Collector has calculated Rs.21,24,049/- towards cost of the land and Rs.40,71,191/- towards interest. Admittedly, the award was made as early as 1986. The judgment in the land acquisition original petition was passed on 20.08.1999. Appeal was filed against the order of the Sub Court, in the year 2004. Till 2002, no deposit was made. The calculation made by the revision petitioner would show that compensation awarded along with interest as on 10.12.2002 was Rs.61,95,240/-. The revision petitioner has, as stated supra, deducted a sum of Rs.21,24,049/- from the land value and proceeded further that interest on interest cannot be calculated.
8. Per contra, the respondents / judgment debtors have filed the execution petition after deducting the deposits made, as prescribed by the decree.
9. As pointed out by this Court in CRP (NPD) No.25 of 2016 dated 20.01.2016, between the same parties, appropriation shall be made first towards interest amount and thereafter towards the principal amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GURPREET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [2007 (3) CTC 170] following the judgment in PREM NATH KAPUR & ANR. VS. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. [1995 SUPP. (5) SCR 790] has categorically held that the decree holder would be entitled to appropriate the award amount on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads by the judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention.
10. In the present case, the short fall of deposit was to the tune of Rs.61,95,240/- as on 10.12.2002 calculated by the revision petitioner. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on 10.12.2002. This Court, in an earlier instance, between the same parties, has upheld the order of the Executing Court that the appropriation shall be made towards interest in the first instance and thereafter, towards the principal amount. Whereas, the revision petitioner has calculated vis-a-vis and deducted the deposit towards principal and thereafter towards interest. The revision petitioner has also claimed that interest over the balance interest amount cannot be claimed by the decree holder and would contend that the calculation memo accepted by the Executing Court is wrong.
11. As seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh's case cited supra, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the revision petitioner. Since the petitioner has failed to deposit the money within the specified time, they are liable to pay interest as held by this Court in the previous rounds of litigation and the decree holder is entitled to appropriate the deposited amount towards interest and thereafter, claim the balance amount from the revision petitioner / judgment debtor. Therefore, the calculation made by the revision petitioner is not in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the contentions raised are also not sustainable. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, one month time is granted to the revision petitioner to deposit the amount claimed in the execution petition. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK To The First Additional Sub Court Erode.
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK C.R.P.(NPD) NO.3205 OF 2017 12.09.2017