APCIV/73/2009 of U.O.I. AND ANR. Vs NARINDER SINGH AND ORS. on 31 December 2019

ORDER

1. This is an application moved by Union of India seeking a direction to the Registry to release the excess amount deposited by them during the pendency of CIMA No. 198/2004, which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 04.12.2008. The applicant claims that the amount in excess to the amount, which was payable to the respondents in terms of the judgment dated 04.12.208 stands deposited in the Registry and, therefore, they are entitled to the refund/release of the excess amount.

2. The application has been contested by the respondents stating that there is no amount in excess lying with the Registry and as a matter of fact, there is a short fall of Rs. 41,70,313/- as on 19.11.2011.

3. With a view to get exact information on the point in dispute, this Court vide order dated 22.10.2011 had directed the Registrar Judicial to file a report in this regard. The Registrar Judicial has filed the report and has confirmed that as per the judgment of this Court, a sum of Rs. 41,70,313/- is still payable to the respondents and this was the position as on 19.11.2011.

4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI appearing for the applicant submits that as per the judgment of this Court dated 04.12.2008, the applicant is not liable to pay any interest on the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. It is submitted that the plea of the respondents that they are entitled to solatium and interest has been rejected by this Court and, therefore, the amount deposited by the applicants far exceeds their liability and, therefore, they are entitled to refund.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the interpretation placed by the applicants on the judgment of this Court is not correct. It may be noted that the Arbitrator, i.e. learned District Judge, Udhampur decided the reference under J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 on 16.08.2003 and held the claimants entitled to a compensation @ 1,20,000/- per kanal. The Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 9 % from the date of Collector’s award till realization. The Arbitrator’s award was assailed by the applicants by way of CIMA No. 198/2004. This Court accepted the plea of Union of India with regard to the market value of the land and reduced it from Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 1, 00,000/- per kanal and directed the applicants to pay the award amount along with interest. It is worthwhile to notice that during the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondents raised an issue with regard to the denial of solatium and interest thereon but the said plea was rejected by this Court saying that under the provisions of the J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, no solatium is payable. It is true that the Union of India in its appeal has specifically raised the issue that the payment of interest was not with the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under the J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 and, therefore, they should not be penalized by awarding such interest that too @ 9 %. One finds great deal of the discussion on the issue but there is no specific finding returned by this Court with regard to the power of the learned Arbitrator to grant interest on the amount payable by way of compensation to the interested persons.

6. Be that as it may, there could possibly be dispute with regard to

the power and authority of the Arbitrator to pay the interest pendente lite and also for pre-reference period but there could be no dispute with regard to the payment of interest on the amount, which becomes due as per the Collector’s award. Though not specifically dealt with, this Court while disposing of the appeal, has clearly proceeded on that legal basis and, thus, awarded interest on the award amount.

7. I have no reason to interpret the judgment of this Court in a manner other than what was intended in the judgment. That apart, it is in consonance with law and in the interest of justice that the award amount also earns interest, at least from the period it becomes due and remains unpaid.

8. For the foregoing reasons and also taking into consideration the note of the Registrar Judicial, I am of the view that this application lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. The observation made hereinabove are only limited to the disposal of this application and shall not be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the execution proceedings. The respondents are free to get the judgment of this Court executed in accordance with law.

(Sanjeev Kumar)

Judge

Jammu 31.12.2019 Tarun Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.