http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KARTAR SINGH @ Naranjan Singh & Ors.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/03/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1726            1995 SCC  (4) 101  JT 1995 (3)   422        1995 SCALE  (2)598

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.For   the  lands  of  the  appellants  acquired   by   the notification  under  s.4(1)  of the  Land  Acquisition  Act, published   on  October  15,  1971,  the  Land   Acquisition Collector,  in his award dated January 24, 1973,  awarded  a sum of Rs. 1,30,949.30/-. On reference, the Addl.   District Judge,  by  his  award and decree  dated  August  27,  1975, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per  marla but,  on appeal by the respondent in R.F.A. No. 15/1976,  it was  reduced  to Rs.255/- per marla.   Pending  appeal,  the appellants  had  executed and recovered  the  enhanced  com- pensation  with  interest  on  May  27,  1976.   The  State, therefore, filed an application under s. 144 CPC on February 28, 1983 for restitution of the excess amount with  interest payable  thereon.   The appellant  had  deposited  principal excess  amount  of Rs.57,920.26 on February 21,  1985.   The District  Judge  by  his order dated March  15,  1985  while upholding  restitution  of  the  excess  amount,  disallowed interest payable thereon.  On appeal, the High Court by  the impugned order in Execution F.A. No. 1374/85 dated  November 5, 1985 directed the appellants to pay interest.  Thus  this appeal by special leave. 3.Learned  counsel for the appellants  vehemently  contended that  in an application for restitution under s. 144 of  the CPC  the respondent is not entitled to the  interest,  since there was no direction to pay interest.  We find no force in the contention.  Admittedly, the appellants had realised the enhanced  amount  of compensation  with  /interest  computed under s.28 of the Act. 4.   Under   s.144  C.P.C.,  the  doctrine  of   restitution contemplates  that where property was received by a  decree- holder in execution of a decree which, on appeal, either  in whole  or  in  part thereof,  is  subsequently  reversed  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

varied,  the court is empowered to restore to  the  judgment debtor what has been lost to him in execution of the  decree and  it  is the consequence of the  erroneous  decree.   The restitution is consequential to the variation or reversal of the  decree  or  on its being modified or  set  aside.   The condition precedent for restitution, therefore, is that  the decree  of  the, trial court must be reversed or  varied  in appeal  or  otherwise.   The  word  "consequentially"   lays emphasis  on  the  obligation on the party to  the  suit  or proceedings who received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. The court therefore, is bound to restore the parties, as far as  they can be, to the same position they were at the  time when  the court by its erroneous action had  displaced  them from  it.  Equally  where a sum of money  was  recovered  in execution  by  a decree which was subsequently  reversed  or varied, the judgment-debtor is entitled to get back not only the  sum recovered but also the interest thereon or  damages or  compensation  for the period that the  amount  had  been retained  by him.  The reason being that the person who  has taken the money improperly from the judgment-debtor has to 425 restitute  to  him the amount as a corollary  with  interest during  the time that the money has been withheld from  him. The  owner  or  the  person  interested  in  the  land  when recovered the compensation under the award and decree  which was  reversed,  varied or modified on appeal, the  court  is empowered  under  s.144 CPC to restitute the amount  to  the State  with  interest  or quantified damages or  by  way  of compensation. 5.   It  is  seen  that  the  High  Court  had  reduced  the compensation  from  Rs.300 to Rs.255,per marla  and  in  the meanwhile  the appellants had recovered the award amount  at Rs.300/-  per  marla  in execution with  interest.   So  the appellants  are  liable  to  restitute  the  excess   amount realised  in execution of the decree of the reference  court or appeal under s.54 with interest.  Granting of interest or damage  or compensation is consequential to  the  variation, reversal or setting aside of the enhanced compensation under s.23(1) and computation of statutory interest under s.28  on enhanced  compensation and interest on solatium if  paid  as per the decree or order of the Court.  The State is entitled to  restitute  of the benefit accrued to the  owner  in  the original  decree.   Direction to restitute the  amount  with interest  is within the powers conferred on the court  under s.  144  of  the Code.  Therefore, the  High  Court  rightly directed  the appellants to refund the enhanced amount  with interest  since the appellants had the benefit of the  money after the realisation till date of return or restitution. 6.   The appeal is dismissed.  No costs. 426