REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4988-5047, 5048-5051, 5052 & 5053 OF 2010 (Arising  out  of  SLP  (C)  Nos.25319-25378  of  2004,  23075-23078/2005,  12386/2006 & 1801/2007)

LAND ACQN. OFFICER  & ASSTT.COMMNR. & ANR.          ...Appellants                   

VERSUS

SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR & ORS.                              …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5054, 5055, 5056, 5057, 5058, 5059, 5060, 5061,  5062, 5063, 5064, 5065, 5066, 5067, 5068 & 5069 OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 18518/2005, 18522/2005, 18523/2005, 18521/2005,  18519/2005,  18525/2005,  18526/2005,  18524/2005,  18528/2005,  20027/2005,  20029/2005, 19786/2005, 19787/2005, 19788/2005, 23003/2005,  22773/2005)

        WITH

(SLP…….(CC)  Nos.4641 of 2005, 4646 of 2005 and SLP (CC) No.5375 of 2005)

WITH

(SLP  …….(CC)  Nos.5505,  5521,  5831,  5835,  5853,  5841,  5899  and  5923  of  2005)

WITH

(SLP  (C)  No.9504/2005,  SLP (C)  No.25015/2005,  SLP.....(CC)  No.5402/2005,  SLP  (C)  No.241/2006,  SLP(C)No.20021/2005,  SLP(C)No.20023/2005,  SLP(C)  No.20022/2005,  SLP (C) No.20024/2005)

JUDGMENT

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. In  all  the  cases  in  this  large  group,  arising  from  land  acquisition  

proceedings, the State of Karnataka is directed to pay interest on the amounts of  

solatium.  The  liability  to  pay  interest  on  solatium  stands  settled  by  the  

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7  

SCC 211. But Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Standing Counsel for the State of  

Karnataka,  the  appellant  in  all  the  appeals,  submitted  that  the  question  of  

applicability  of  the  decision  in  Sunder was  explained  and  clarified  in  another  

Constitution  Bench  decision  of  this  Court  (delivered  after  the  filing  of  these  

appeals) in Gurpreet Singh vs.  Union of India,  (2006) 8 SCC 457. Relying upon  

paragraph 54 of the judgment in  Gurpreet Singh,  Mr. Hegde submitted that in  

cases where full payments were made in terms of the decree and the execution  

proceedings were consequently closed,  the proceedings could not be re-opened  

and directions given for payment of interest on the basis of the decision in Sunder;  

2

further, any direction for payment of interest on solatium could only be for the  

period subsequent to the date of decision in Sunder (September 19, 2001). In other  

words, in cases where the full amounts of solatium were paid before September  

19, 2001, there would be no question of payment of any interest. He, therefore,  

submitted that all the cases should be remitted to the respective courts below to re-

examine the claim of the landowners/claimants in light of the decision in Gurpreet   

Singh.

2. We see no reason to adopt the course suggested by Mr. Hegde. The facts of  

the cases before us are quite simple and it can be easily ascertained which of these  

cases, if any, are hit by the decision in Gurpreet Singh. Besides, all the cases are  

fairly old. An order of remand would simply start a fresh round of appeals and  

further appeals, and would keep the land-holders/claimants embroiled in litigation  

for an extended period. If we can, we would not like the landowners/claimants to  

suffer any longer. If any landowner/claimant has a lawful claim, he must get it;  

otherwise, the matter must end here and now.  

3. On the basis of the respective facts, the appeals in this group can be divided  

into four sub-groups. And now we propose to deal with each sub-group separately.  

4. Before proceeding further, it  may be stated that some cases belonging to  

different  sub-groups  enumerated  herein  below  were  earlier  disposed  of  in  

piecemeal manner by order passed on March 25, 2010. Since all the cases in the  

different sub-groups are now being dealt within a consolidated manner, we recall  

the earlier order passed on March 25, 2010.       

3

A

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5054, 5055, 5056, 5057, 5058, 5059, 5060, 5061,  5062, 5063, 5064, 5065, 5066, 5067, 5068 & 5069 OF 2010

(Arising  out  of  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  Nos.  18518/2005,   18522/2005,    18523/2005,  18521/2005,  18519/2005,  18525/2005,  18526/2005,  18524/2005,  18528/2005,  20027/2005,  20029/2005,  19786/2005,  19787/2005,  19788/2005,  23003/2005,    22773/2005)   

5. There are sixteen cases in this sub-group with identical facts.  

6. Delay condoned.

7. Leave granted.

8. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appears on behalf of the appellant, the Special  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  Ms.  Kiran  Suri,  learned  counsel  represents  the  

respondents-landowners in all the appeals in this sub-group.

9.     The facts of the case, relevant for the present are very simple and brief and  

may be stated thus. The possession of the land coming under acquisition was taken  

over by the State on August 14, 1989 even before the issuance of the preliminary  

notification that came on January 3, 1992. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his  

award on October 13,  1993 fixing compensation at  the rate of Rs.20,000/-  per  

acre.  On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the civil court, by judgment  

and order dated November 27, 1998 enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per  

acre. It also awarded solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12% from the  

date of dispossession till the date of the award and interest @ 9% for the first year  

and 15% from the second year  onwards  till  the  date  of  realisation.   Both the  

Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  the  landowners/claimants  filed  their  

respective appeals against the order of the civil court. The appeal preferred by the  

4

Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  was  dismissed  but  the  appeals  of  the  

landowners/claimants  (MFAs  in  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka)  came  to  be  

admitted. While the landowners appeals were pending before the Karnataka High  

Court,  a  Constitution Bench of  this  Court  pronounced the judgment in  Sunder  

which settled the issue regarding the liability of payment of interest on the amount  

of solatium. Later on, the appeals filed by the landowners were allowed by the  

Karnataka High Court by judgment and order dated March 31, 2003.  The High  

Court further enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.60,000/- per acre fixed  

by the civil court to Rs.78,000/- per acre and in the operative portion (paragraph  

14 of the judgment) directed as follows:-

“Accordingly, we allow all these appeals in part. The appellants/land  owners are entitled to compensation of Rs.78,000/- per acre, along  with  the  statutory  benefits.  The  awards  passed  by  the  Reference  Court  under  appeals  accordingly  shall  stand  modified.  In  the  circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

10. Following the judgment of the High Court, the landowners once again went  

before the execution court for realisation of the additional amounts in terms of the  

High Court order. A copy of the execution petition along with the order sheet of  

the execution proceeding is produced before us, that leave no room for doubt that  

though  payments  in  terms of  the  decree  passed  by  the  civil  court  were  made  

earlier,  execution  proceedings  commenced  afresh  directly  in  pursuance  of  the  

judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  the  landowners'/claimants'  

appeals and the decree/award modified on that basis.

11. In light of the above facts, we now examine the objection raised by Mr.  

Hegde relying upon the observations and directions made in paragraph 54 of the  

5

Constitution bench decision in Gurpreet Singh. Paragraph 54 of the decision is as  

follows:

“54. 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 counsel to address us on that question. That question is  whether in the light of the decision in  Sunder vs.  Union of India  (2001) 7 SCC 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  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  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 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  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 judgment in Sunder (19-9-01) and  not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any  reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This 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 litigation on this question.”

   (emphasis added)

12. Relying upon the portion shown in italics in the above quoted passage,  

Mr. Hegde argued that in these cases the amount of solatium as determined by the  

civil  court  was  paid  long  before  September  19,  2001,  following  which  the  

execution proceeding was closed and hence,  no liability of  any interest  on the  

6

amount of solatium could be fastened upon the State in light of the decision in  

Gurpreet Singh.  

13.     We are unable to accept the submission and in our view the decision in  

Gurpreet Singh has no application to the facts of the present cases.  In paragraph  

54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh’s case, the Court was considering the scope  

of execution proceedings and the limitations of the execution court. The three lines  

relied upon by Mr. Hegde must be read and understood in the context of what is  

said earlier.  The Court clearly said that the execution court could not go beyond  

the  decree.   In  the  event,  the  claim  of  interest  was  rejected  expressly  or  by  

necessary implication in the decree, it would not be permissible for the execution  

court  to grant  interest  relying upon the decision in  Sunder.  But,  even then the  

Court went on to clarify that if the award of the reference court or the appellate  

court was silent on the issue of solatium and interest then it would be open to the  

execution  court  to  apply  the  ratio  of  Sunder and  say  that  the  compensation  

awarded would include solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could  

be directed to be deposited in execution.  The decision in  Gurpreet Singh,  thus,  

actually enlarged the scope of execution proceeding, in a certain way, on the basis  

of the decision in Sunder. Coming now to the passage specially relied upon by Mr.  

Hegde, we do not have the slightest doubt that the reference to “closed executions”  

does not mean cases in which the main proceeding arising from the landowner’s  

claim for enhanced compensation remains pending before the civil court or at the  

appellate stage. It may sometimes happen, as illustrated by this case that the award  

of the Collector or the decree of the civil court is put to execution and payments  

7

are made in terms of the award or the decree of the civil court and in that sense the  

award or the decree is satisfied. Nevertheless, an appeal against the award or the  

decree of the civil court may still remain pending either before the High Court or  

even  before  this  Court.  In  appeal,  the  superior  court  may  enhance  the  

compensation which would lead to enhancement of solatium and consequently the  

interest  on  the  additional  amounts  of  compensation  and  solatium.   In  such  a  

situation,  the landowner/claimant  would be bound to go back to  the  execution  

court for realisation of the additional amounts in terms of the modified decree. In  

such cases, the execution proceedings cannot be deemed to be closed and neither  

was it the intent of the observations in paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet   

Singh. Coming now to the stipulation that any interest on solatium can only be  

granted for the period subsequent to September 19, 2001, the date of the decision  

in Sunder, it is evident that this again, is a limitation on the power of the execution  

court. The direction is actually referable to those cases in which the award of the  

reference court or the appellate court being silent, it is left open to the execution  

court to give direction for the deposit of interest on solatium. In such cases, the  

reference court can ask for interest only for the period subsequent to September  

19, 2001. The direction in no way circumscribes the power of the court dealing  

with  the  main  proceeding  relating  to  enhancement  of  the  compensation.  The  

matter can be looked at from another angle. The appeal being the continuation of  

the original proceeding, in the facts of the cases in this sub-group, there can be no  

question of accrual of interest only after the date of the decision in Sunder. At this  

stage, it may be recalled that the civil court had  awarded solatium @ 30% and  

8

interest @ 9% for the first year and @ 15% from second year onwards till the date  

of  realisation.  The  State’s  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  civil  court  was  

dismissed. Thus, the direction for payment of solatium with interest at the rates  

indicated had become final. The High Court enhanced the rate of compensation.  

This  would  inevitably  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  solatium  and  

consequently in the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of solatium. Thus,  

looked at from any point of view, the question of payment of interest subsequent  

to September 19, 2001 does not arise.

14. For the reasons discussed above, we see no merit  in these appeals.  The  

appeals are, accordingly, dismissed but with no order as to costs.     

15. For any grievance with regard to calculation of the amounts of solatium or  

interest, it will be open to the appellant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer to  

raise his objections, if otherwise permissible in law.

B

SLP ………..CC Nos.4641 of 2005, 4646 of 2005 and SLP CC Nos.5375 of 2005.

16. These  three  Special  Leave  Petitions  were  filed  beyond  the  period  of  

limitation. In SLP…..(CC) No.4641 of 2005, there is delay of 158 days, in SLP….

(CC) No.4646 of 2005, there is delay of 219 days and in SLP……(CC) No.5375  

of 2005, there is delay of 187 days.

17.    Mr. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents-landowners  

stated that after filing the SLPs, the State had made payment of interest on the  

amount of solatium to the respondents-landowners. In SLP…..(CC) No.4641 of  

9

2005, the amount of interest paid to the land owner/respondent was Rs.41,236/-, in  

SLP…..(CC) No.4646 of 2005, Rs.50,752/- and in SLP…..(CC) No. 5375 of 2005  

it was Rs.41,236/-. Interest was paid, however, up to the year 2002 and not up to  

September 11, 2005 when the actual payment was made.  Hence, according to the  

respondent-landowners, the amount of interest for the period 2002 to September  

11, 2005 still remains unpaid.  The amounts that remain unpaid are much smaller  

than the amounts that were paid to the landowners/claimants, as indicated above.

18. Mr. Patil further stated that these three SLPs before us are out of a batch of  

20 similar cases. Learned counsel gave us a tabular chart giving the details of all  

the 20 cases that were disposed of by the High Court under different MFA Nos. In  

this  Chart,  the  present  SLPs  figure  at  serial  nos.  11,  15  and  13.   He  further  

informed us that the SLPs arising from the cases at serial nos. 10 and 16 were  

earlier dismissed by this Court, one [SLP…..(CC) No.1611/2005] on the ground of  

limitation alone and other  [SLP…..(CC) No.3929/2005] both on the ground of  

delay and on merits.

19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in  

these matters. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, both on grounds of delay  

and  on  merits  with  the  direction  to  the  petitioner  to  pay  to  the  respective  

respondents/land  owners  the  balance  amounts  of  interest  on  solatium  for  the  

period from 2002 to 11.9.2005.

20. The  observations  and  directions  of  the  High  Court  in  regard  to  any  

1

differences in calculation remain undisturbed.

SLP…..(CC) Nos.5505, 5521, 5831, 5835, 5853, 5841, 5899 and 5923 of 2005.

21. In view of the order passed in SLP……(CC) Nos.4641 of 2005 etc. etc.,  

these Special Leave Petitions are also dismissed both on the grounds of delay and  

on merits.  The observations and directions  of the High Court in regard to any  

differences in calculation remain undisturbed.

C

SLP  (C)  No.9504/2005,  SLP  (C)  No.25015/2005,  SLP.....(CC)  No.5402/2005,  SLP (C) No.241/2006, SLP (C) No.20021/2005, SLP (C) No.20023/2005, SLP (C)  No.20022/2005, SLP (C) No.20024/2005

22. SLP (C) No. 9504/2005 is within time.

23. Delay condoned in rest of the matters.

24. In view of the orders passed in the cases in the preceding sub-groups, all  

these Special Leave Petitions are to be dismissed subject to the observation that in  

case of any grievance in regard to calculations, it will be open to the petitioner/the  

Special Land Acquisition Officer to raise his objections, if otherwise permissible  

in law.

25. It may also be added that accrual of interest will cease on the date the full  

amount of solatium is paid along with the interest accrued on it.   

D

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4988-5047, 5048-5051, 5052 & 5053 OF 2010 (Arising  out  of  SLP  (C)  Nos.25319-25378  of  2004,  23075-23078/2005,  12386/2006 & 1801/2007).

26. Leave granted.  

1

27. We finally  come to  sub-group,  to  which  at  least  the  submission  of  Mr.  

Hegde, based on the decision in Gurpreet Singh seems to fully apply.

28. The facts of the cases in this sub-group are as brief and simple as in the  

earlier sub-groups. In the Collector’s award made on August 20, 1997, the market  

value of the acquired lands was fixed @ Rs.21,500/- per acre (Kharab land @  

Rs.400/acre). Against the award of the Collector, 20 references came to be made  

under section 18 of the Act at the instance of the aggrieved landowners/claimants.  

All the 20 reference cases were decided by a common judgment and order dated  

November 30, 1998 passed by Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Koppal, in LAC  

No.44 of 1998 and analogous cases. The civil court enhanced the market value of  

the subject lands from Rs.21,500/-  per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre. It also held  

the  claimants  entitled  to  solatium at  30% of  the  market  value  along  with  the  

additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession of  

the land on January 12, 1994 to the date of the award on August 20, 1997. It  

further held the claimants entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  

taking possession of the land on January 12, 1994 for the first year and after that  

from January  12,  1995  @ 15% till  the  date  of  full  and  final  payment  of  the  

compensation. What is relevant for the present,  however, is that the civil court  

expressly rejected the landowners’ claim for  interest on solatium observing as  

follows:

“The  Claimants  are  not  entitled  for  interest  on  solatium  and  additional market value in view of the case law reported in 1996 (2)  SCC  71  (Premnath  Kapoor  and  another  vs.  National  Fertilizers  Corporation of India Ltd., and others.).”  

1

29. Apparently no one took the decision of the civil court any further and the  

matter was allowed to rest at that stage.  

30. On September 19, 2001 came the decision of the Constitution Bench of this  

court in Sunder and then an appeal (MFA No.837 of 2002) was filed against the  

judgment and order passed by the Civil Court on November 30, 1998. The appeal,  

when it was filed, was barred by limitation by 1072 days. It is also not denied that  

long before the filing of the appeal or even before the judgment in Sunder came on  

September 19, 2001, the claimants had received all the payments in terms of the  

judgment and award given by the civil court.  

31. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal by order dated March  

20, 2002 observing as follows:  

“6. The only ground urged by the appellants in their appeals is that  the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguishing its earlier judgment in the  case  of  PREMNATH  KAPOOR  &  ANR.  VS.  NATIONAL  FERTILISER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., & Ors. Reported  in 1996 (2) SCC 72, has held in Sunder vs. Union of India reported  in 2001 (6) SCALE 405, that a claimant is entitled to compensation  under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be entitle to get interest on  the  aggregate  amounts  including  solatium.  In  the  said  decision  a  Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has decided the question  referred to the Bench as to whether the State is liable to pay interest  on solatium under Sec.23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the  said question has been answered in the affirmative.  

7. Therefore,  it  appears that the appellants who never intended to  challenge the awards were made to file the appeals after the above  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus no ground is made  out by the appellants for condonation of such exorbitant delay. The  appellants  could  have  sought  review  of  the  order  before  the  reference Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme  Court.”

32. Taking advantage of the remark that in view of the decision in Sunder, the  

1

landowners/claimants might have moved the reference court in review, as many as  

36  review  petitions  came  to  be  filed  before  the  civil  court.  All  those  review  

petitions were dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koppal by order  

dated January 2, 2003 passed in Misc. Case No.30/202 and analogous cases. The  

Civil  Judge found that  the case set  up for  condonation of the huge delay was  

palpably false and further that the review petitions were not maintainable and there  

were no reasonable grounds to review its judgment and award dated November 30,  

1998.

33. Against  the  order  of  the  civil  court,  the  landowners/claimants  came  in  

revision before the High Court. A very large number of revisions (59 in all) were  

clubbed together for hearing before a division bench of the Karnataka High Court.  

All the revisions were finally allowed by judgment and order dated June 1, 2004 in  

Civil Revision Petition No.650 of 2003 and other analogous cases. The High Court  

did not allow either the long (and unexplained) delay or the earlier rejection of the  

claimants’ appeal by a single judge of the court against the judgment of the civil  

court  in  section  18  references,  or  the  fact  that  the  claimants  had  received  all  

payments in terms of the court’s order long before the decision in  Sunder was  

given by this  court,  stand in their  way in claiming interest  on the amounts  of  

solatium and additional market value. The long and erudite judgment passed by  

the High Court is full of kind sentiments for the revision petitioners whose lands  

were compulsorily acquired by the Government and is also supported by good  

legal reasoning. The High Court decision was given long before the Constitution  

Bench  decision  of  this  Court  in  Gurpreet  Singh. But  when  it  comes  up  for  

1

consideration before us in this appeal the decision in Gurpreet Singh is very much  

there. We do not know how we would have responded to the judgment of the High  

Court, had it come before us, without the intervening decision of this Court in  

Gurpeet Singh. But the Constitution Bench decision is as much binding on us, as  

on the High Court. And, when tested against the decision in Gurpreet Singh, the  

High Court judgment coming under appeal appears to be plainly untenable. The  

High Court decision seeks to do exactly what is held impermissible in  Gurpreet   

Singh. From the facts noted above, it is manifest and clear that on September 19,  

2001 when the decision in Sunder was rendered, the land acquisition proceedings  

(including the execution proceedings) were over and closed. The reference court  

had given its decision and the modified award was fully satisfied; all payments in  

terms of the award of the reference court were made to the landowners/claimants.  

After the decision in Sunder, an appeal was filed against the judgment and award  

given by the reference court. That effort remained unsuccessful. Then a review  

petition was filed before the reference court and the matter was finally brought to  

the High Court in revision against the order passed by the reference court. It is,  

thus, patent that a concluded and closed proceeding was sought to be revived by  

the device of filing a review petition and then filing a revision against the order  

dismissing  the  review petition.  This  was  plainly  impermissible  in  view of  the  

decision of this court in paragraph 54, in Gurpreet Singh.

34. On behalf  of  the  respondents-landowners/claimants,  it  was  sought  to  be  

argued that the decision in Gurpreet Singh imposed limitations on the power of the  

execution court but it did not restrict the power of the High Court in exercise of its  

1

revisional jurisdiction. We are unable to accept the submission. The order passed  

by the civil court, dismissing the review petition was wholly in accordance with  

the view taken by this court in Gurpreet Singh. The High Court order, reversing  

the order of the civil court and allowing the claim of the respondents led to a result  

disapproved by this court.

35. Thus,  when looked  at  from any angle,  the  High Court  decision  coming  

under appeal is untenable. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the matter  

and set  aside the judgment of the division bench of the Karnataka High Court  

coming under appeal.

36. The appeals in this sub-group are allowed but with no order as to costs.  

         ……..………………………J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……..………………………J. (SWATANTER KUMAR)

New Delhi, July 7, 2010.

1