Allowed

Union of India v. Legal Heirs of Sujit Kr. Dey and Anr.

Tripura HC5 Jul 2017CRP/42/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court interfered with an impugned order in an execution petition concerning land acquisition compensation. Finding errors in land classification and interest calculation, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter for recalculating dues following specific appropriation principles regarding deposited amounts.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for recalculation of compensation and interest with specific directions on land rates and appropriation of deposited amounts.

Union of India Vs Legal Heirs of Sujit Kr. Dey and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

CRP 42 of 2016

¶4

The Union of India , represented by the I.G.P.,CRPF, Tripura Sector, Ushabazar, Agartala, West Tripura

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus –

¶7

1.(a) Smt. Soma Roy (Dey) , wife of Bijan Behari Roy, daughter of late Sujit Kumar Dey, resident of Chandrapur, Jamtala, Indranagar, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN-799008

¶8

1.(b) Smt. Ruma Roy (Datta) , wife of Prasanta Kumar Datta, daughter of late Sujit Kumar Dey, resident of Rajnagar, Teliamura, P.O.- Teliamura, P.S. Teliamura, District- Khowai, Tripura

¶9

2. The L.A. Collector , West Tripura, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799001

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. A.Roy Barman, CGC For the respondent no.1 : Mr. B. Debnath, Advocate Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment and Order : 05.07.2017 Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶13

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶14

Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(a) and 1(b). There is no representation for the respondent No.2 despite due notice from this court.

¶15

2. This is a petition under Section 115 of the CPC questioning the order dated 13.01.2015 as delivered in Execution (M) 01 of 2007 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court no.2, West Tripura,

¶16

CRP 42 of 2016

¶17

¶18

Agartala. By the said order, the Land Acquisition Judge has observed as under:

¶19

“The land under this case is measuring 3.20 acres of Tilla class of land. So, decreetal dues to be paid by the J.Ds appears to be as follows: I) land value of the acquired land measuring 3.20 acres @2,00,000/- per acres amounts to Rs.6,40,000/-. Additional amount of 12% on Rs.6,40,000/- from 03.02.1989 (from the date of Notification) to 17.02.1990 (date of award by Collector) for one year and 14 days is calculated at Rs.79,740/-. (II) 30% solatium on Rs.6,40,000/- comes to Rs.1,92,000/-.

¶20

In total irs.1,85,749/-. It comes to Rs.9,11,740/-. Initial payment received by the DH from collector Rs.1,85,749/-. Now after deducting the initial receipt it comes to Rs.7,25,991/-.

¶21

No, DH is entitled to get 9% interest on Rs.7,25,991/- w.e.f. 05.07.91 to 04.07.1992 for one years which is calculated at Rs.65,339/-. Again the DH is entitled to get 15% interest on Rs.7,25,991/- w.e.f. 05.07.1992 to 20.5.1999 (upto to the date of payment of Rs.5,80,242/- to the DH) for 5 years 10 months and 15 days which is calculated at Rs.6,39,778/-. Total interest (9% and 15% as on 20.5.1998) comes to Rs.7,05,117/- and after deducting the payment of Rs.5,80,242/- on that interest it comes to Rs.1,24,875/-.

¶22

Again, the DH is entitled to get interest @15% on Rs.7,25,991/- w.e.f. 21.5.1998 to 16.09.2006 (date of payment of Rs.3,97,101/-) for 8 years 3 months and 25 days which is calculated at Rs.9,05,975/-. Adding previous interest of Rs.1,24,875/- interest upto 16.09.2006 comes to Rs.10,30,850/-. After deducting the payment of Rs.3,97,101/- on 16.09.2006 balance interest comes to Rs.6,33,749/-

¶23

Again the DH is entitled to get interest @15% on Rs.7,25,991/- w.e.f. 17.09.2006 to till to date for 8 years 3 months 26 days which is calculated at Rs.9,06,277/-. So as on to date, the DH is entitled to get total interest of Rs.15,40,026/- (Rs. 6,33,749/- + Rs. 9,06,277/-), Principal amount of Rs.7,25,991/- and cost of Rs.100/-. The JDs are to make payment of the Principal outstanding amount of Rs.7,25,991/- together with interest @15% from to date and arrear of interest amount of Rs.15,40,026/- along with cost of Rs.100/- within 60 days”.

¶24

3. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has at the outset submitted that in terms of the calculation dated 19.12.2015 furnished by the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioner has paid the entire amount and according to them they are not liable to pay any further amount in terms of the judgment and award dated 30.08.1997 delivered in Misc. (LA) 153 of 1992 by the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has submitted that by the said judgment and award the rate was enhanced to Rs.80,000/- per kani for tilla class of land and Rs.75,000/- per kani was awarded for the CRP 42 of 2016

¶25

¶26

bagan, lunga and nal class of land, but by the impugned order all classes of land has been accounted for Rs.80,000/- per kani though from the assessment sheet, as produced with the reference it is clearly apparent that the land acquired from the respondent No.1 falls in two categories. Under Khatian no. 2417 of Mouja-Kunjaban, plots No. 65/P, 45/P and 41 are of tilla class of land measuring 0.235 acres whereas the remaining land falls under the nal class of land measuring 2.565 acres. Thus, Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has submitted that the entire calculation made by the Land Acquisition Judge in the impugned judgment is untenable.

¶27

4. From the other side, Mr. Debnath, learned counsel after perusing the assessment sheet has fairly acceded that there is a mistake in the calculation of the Land Acquisition Judge while passing the order dated 13.01.2015 which has been challenged in this petition, but Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further pointed out that the calculation as submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector is faulty inasmuch as the amount that was deposited earlier has been adjusted against the principal amount of the compensation not against the interest that accrued for the belated payment. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has relied on a constitution bench decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457 . In Gurpreet Singh (supra) it has been held that if the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtors falls short of the decreetal amount, the Decree Holder is entitled to apply the rule of CRP 42 of 2016

¶28

¶29

appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest, then towards cost and subsequently towards the principal amount due under the decree. The Larger Bench of the Apex Court in V. Kala Bharathi vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2014 ACJ 1612 adopting that principle had observed that the appellants in that case were entitled to the amount awarded by the executing court as the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor fell short of the decreetal amount. After such appropriation, the Decree Holder is entitled to interest only to the extent of unpaid principal amount. Hence, interest be calculated on the unpaid principal amount. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further submitted that no interest has been calculated upon from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on solatium. As a result the said calculation cannot be relied upon. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further submitted that the legal heirs of Sujit kumar Dey, the respondent no.1 namely Soma Roy (Dey) and Smt. Ruma Dey (Dutta) be substituted in the execution case in place of Sri Sujit kumar Dey, as this High Court has already substituted them by the order dated 22.06.2017 passed in I.A. 02 of 2017 in CRP 42 of 2016. For this no formal order will be required to be passed by the Executing Court. In terms of this order substitution shall be made automatically by the Executing Court and the calculation which would be filed by those legal heirs shall be accepted for consideration.

¶30

CRP 42 of 2016

¶31

¶32

4. Similarly, according to Mr. Debnath, learned counsel no interest has been on the additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) of the LA Act as the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & another reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5947 has clearly observed as under:

¶33

“Interest :

¶34

19. Subsequent to the decision of the High Court, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India [2001 (7) SCC 211], held that the `amount awarded' for the purpose of interest will include not only the market value but also the additional amount under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the Act. In Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. LAO 2007 (2) SCC 341, this Court held that the calculation of interest on the additional amount under section 23(1A) and 23(2) is automatic and consequential, even in the absence of any specific appeal by the claimants in respect of non-grant of such interest. At all events, as we are reducing the compensation from Rs.17.10 to Rs.13 per sq. meter, the claimants are entitled to support and sustain the award for the higher amount as per the decision of reference court and High Court on other factors. Conclusion :

¶35

20. We accordingly allow these appeals in part and make the following modification to the award made by the Reference Court confirmed by the High Court: The claimants/respondents will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. m. with additional amount under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) as awarded. The respondents-claimants will be entitled to interest at the rates awarded by the reference court (9% per annum for one year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter) on the total compensation amount including additional amount under section 23 (1A) and solatium under section 23(2). Parties to bear their respective costs”.

¶36

5. Having appreciated the rival contentions this court finds

¶37

that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same is interfered with and set aside. The matter is remanded back for recalculation of the due in the said Execution case being Ex(M) 01 of 2007. At the time of calculating the due, the Land Acquisition Judge shall observe the following mode:

¶38

Land value : The land value shall be calculated at Rs.80,000/- per kani on 0.235 acres (tilla class) out of 3.20

¶39

CRP 42 of 2016

¶40

¶41

acres of the total land that has been acquired and the remaining land measuring 2.965 acres shall be calculated @Rs. 75,000/- per kani. After calculating the compensation the additional compensation @12% per annum shall be calculated in terms of Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter the solatium @30% per annum in terms of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act be added. Interest be paid in terms of the judgment and award dated 30.08.1997. It is clarified that the interest shall be counted from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act both on the additional compensation under Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and on solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act meaning the first one year the interest will be at 9% and thereafter the interest will be 15% per annum till the payment is made. In the process when the total compensation would be calculated, the deposit whatsoever made by the Land Acquisition Collector or the amount that has been paid to the original respondent No.1 shall be adjusted and such adjustment shall be made by applying the law of appropriation meaning first the adjustment shall be made against the due interest and after adjusting the interest the remaining part shall be adjusted against the principal compensation. The interest further shall be carried on the remaining part of the principal

¶42

CRP 42 of 2016

¶43

¶44

compensation and that way when further deposit had been made the said rule of appropriation shall again apply and the interest shall accordingly be calculated. The parties may furnish their own calculations in the execution court. Since the matter is pending for long, the Executing Court shall dispose of the entire execution matter within a period of 3(three) months from the day of their appearance. The parties shall appear before the Executing Court on 31.07.2017.

¶45

6. In the result, this petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties as this court has posted a specific date for appearance.

¶46

LCRs be sent back forthwith.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Saikat

¶49

CRP 42 of 2016

Union of India v. Legal Heirs of Sujit Kr. Dey and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Legal Heirs of Sujit Kr. Dey and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ali Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Parimal Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Abul Kalam Azad Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Union Of India Vs Suresh Laskar And Anr.

Union Of India Vs Harendra Debbarma And Anr.

Union of India Vs Subhash Ch. Roy and Another