This order in Civil Revision No. 2471 of 2011 dismissed the revision petition filed by Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation seeking to set aside an executing court order that granted interest to a landowner on enhanced compensation until the date of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.2471 of 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.2471 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2011
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation through its Senior Manager (Ind.Area), Uklana Road, Narwana, District Jind.
.....Petitioner
v.
Tilak Raj.
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.9848-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No.2471 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.6.2010, Annexure P8, vide which learned Executing Court, Jind, had allowed interest to the respondent-land-owner on the enhanced compensation from 19.11.2008 to 25.6.2010.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court.
Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that land acquisition Court had passed award in favour of respondent-land owner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and hence, execution petition was filed by respondent-land owner. Land of respondentland owner alongwith 49 others was acquired vide the same notification and
Civil Revision No.2471 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
same award was passed in respect of the references filed by all the land owners. All of them filed separate execution petitions. However, during pendency of the execution petitions, amount was deposited by petitioner in lump sum, vide Annexures P2 and P3, without specifying the amount payable to individual land owners. As there was no notice to respondentland owner, the amount remained deposited in the Treasury. The requisite Form D was filed on behalf of the petitioner only on 22.6.2010. Hence, Local Commissioner for making calculations was appointed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, and as per his calculations, the amount alongwith interest upto 25.6.2010 was ordered to be paid to respondent-land owner vide impugned order by observing as under:-
“4. The contents of application are factually wrong and out of the record. The application is totally frivolous and has been filed with mala fide intention, because perusal of earlier calculations filed by local commissioner shows that he had calculated the interest upto 25.06.2010, as prior to it, the petitioners had no knowledge about deposit of any payment. More so, no calculations were ever filed by the JDs prior to that payment. More so, no calculations were ever filed by the JDs prior to that date and thus payment could not have been disbursed to the petitioners. Hence, the prayer of the Jds not to disburse the interest amount from 19.11.2008 till today, i.e. 25.6.2010 is quite unjustified and illegal. It is pertinent to mention here that local commissioner was appointed upon the application vide order dated 31.3.2010 passed by Shri Deepak Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Jind, and he has rightly submitted correct calculations granting interest to the land owners till 26.5.2010, because as discussed above prior to it, the petitioners had no knowledge about deposit of any payment. No counter calculations were ever filed on 22.6.2010 by the applicant and thus no question arises of their non acceptance by this Court and hence the averments in the application in this respect are factually wrong. The calculations have been filed today and thus, from any angle,
Civil Revision No.2471 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
petitioners/land owners cannot be debarred from asking interest till date because unless and until the calculations and Form D are not filed, the land owners cannot withdraw the compensation. However, to avoid any complication and to save loss of interest of the petitioners, 40% of the interest amount calculated in the calculations sheet from 15.7.2005 to 25.6.2010 only be disbursed against surety and the remaining without surety strictly in accordance with D Forms and calculations filed by the JDs against proper receipt and identification from CCD No.598 dated 17.12.2009 and 491 dated 9.12.2009. However, it is made clear that if the applicant would not bring any favourable order in its favour from the Hon'ble High Court by filing any appeal/revision as alleged, within three months from today, in that event the surety so submitted by the land owners shall be released to save them from any further harassment.
Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
Respondent-land lord was having no knowledge of alleged deposit of any amount by the petitioner. Hence, they could not withdraw the amount of enhanced compensation. Hence, in view of these facts, he was rightly held to be entitled for interest upto 25.6.2010.
Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it
Civil Revision No.2471 of 2011(O&M)
-4-
is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
8.4.2011 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 jurisdiction allows interference with executing court order granting interest to landowner.
Whether error of fact in executing court order amounts to manifest illegality warranting High Court intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersReferred¶30
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation
Tilak Raj
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
