Food Corporation of India, Kakinada Rep. by District Manager versus Yarlagadda Narayana Apparao and Ors.

c s.23(2) - Solatium - Liability to pay- Held: Matter needs re-consideration in the light of observation in Gurpreet singh's case - Remitted to High Court.

¶14

Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 - relied on.

¶15

D

¶16

Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 71 ; Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 - referred to.

.., .

Case Law Reference

E

F

(1996) 2 sec 11 referred to Para 2 (2001) 1 sec 211 referred to Para 2 (2006) s sec 457 relied on Para 3

¶22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5725-5726 of 2008

¶23

~ '"

¶24

From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.3.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5048 of 2001

¶25

G

¶26

Amrendra Sharan, ASG, Sukumar Pattajosh, Arvind Kumar Tiwary, Rakesh K. Singh and Sudarsh Menon for the Appellant.

¶27

•

¶28

B. Kanta Rao, Krishnamurthy, B. Sriram and Sudha Gupta for the Respondents.

¶29

600

¶30

H

¶31

FOOD CORP OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP BY DIST. MANAGER 601 v. YARLAGADDA NARAYANAAPPARAO & ORS.

¶32

.• --.J

¶33

'.

¶34

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶35

A

¶36

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶37

).

¶38

.. ~

¶39

Challenge in these appeals is to. the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the Civil Revision Petition Nos.5048 and 5088 of 2001, filed B by the present respondent no.1 in each case. In the civil revision petition itwas indi<'.ated that th_e proforma respondents in these appeals were not necessary parties. The basic dispute relates to liability to interest ori the amount envisaged under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the c 'Act') conveniently called "solatium". The High Court allowed the civil revision petitions being of the view that the decision of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur arid Anr. v. National Ferlilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996 (2) sec 71) was overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder V. Union of India D (2001 (7) sec 211) .

¶40

Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, submitted that both Prem Nath's case (supra) and Sunder's case (supra) were considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457). It was E submitted that view in Prem Nath's case (supra)was stated to be correct one in the said case. Therefore, the view of the High Court cannot be maintained.

¶41

--1

¶42

In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

¶43

F

¶44

In Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) this Court observed, inter alia, as follows:

¶45

;. *

¶46

"53. Thi.ls, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential^G ratio jn Prem Nath Kapur (1996 (2) SCC 71) on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardeedecree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards H

¶47

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶48

[2008] 13 S.C.R.

¶49

~ .

¶50

A 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. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect B of appropriation.

¶51

B

¶52

One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the c counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (2001 (7) sec 211), the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an D execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will E have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or F in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest G on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the

..,, .

r·-

... ~ '

H

FOOD CORP. OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP BY DIST MANAGER 603 v. YARLAGADDA NARAYANAAPPARAO & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶58

1~

¶59

judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any prior A period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree• holder. ihis we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of B litigation on this question."

¶60

In view of what has been stated above, it would be appropriate for the High Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the aforesaid quoted observations of this Court. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh considerC ation.

¶61

The appeals are disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶62

D.G.

¶63

, Appeal disposed of. D

¶64

Food Corporation of India, Kakinada Rep. by District Manager v. Yarlagadda Narayana Apparao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Food Corporation of India, Kakinada Rep. by District Manager v. Yarlagadda Narayana Apparao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhwant Singh versus Jasbir Singh and Ors.

State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu versus N. Rajamanickam and Ors.

Lalliram and Anr. versus State of M.P.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors.

State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tiruchy versus Rettaimandaiyan @ Murugan

Balmiki Singh versus Ram Chander Singh and Ors.