1. This civil revision by the land-owner-petitioners springs from an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 27 August 1979, dismissing Execution Case No. 78 of 1974 in full and final satisfaction of the decree and allowing an objection under Section 47 of the Civil P.C The petitioners are aggrieved by the method of calculation of interest on the quantum of compensation adopted by the judicial Commissioner on the compensation amount awarded in the decree of the Supreme Court (see AIR 1972 SC 1417) and in respect of 4.65 acres of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894), (briefly ‘the Act’). The Supreme Court on 25 January 1972 modified the judgment and decree of this Court passed in First Appeal Nos. 437 and 438 of 1959 and ordered that the petitioners shall be entitled to a decree in respect of the lands acquired; (a) at the rate of Rupees 1,35,000/- only per acre for 4.65 acres; (b) 5% severance and 15% solatium on the aforesaid market value viz. Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre for 4.65 acres; (c) interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount so due from the date of taking possession i.e 23 December, 1954. It also awarded proportionate cost on the difference between the amounts decreed by the High Court and that ordered by it. It further ordered that its order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.

From the above it is quite clear that the Supreme Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre and then gave 5% severance plus 15% solatium. This amount was to be calculated. It comes to this:

4.65 acres at Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre … … … Rs. 6,27,750/- 15 per cent solatium & 5 per cent severance … Rs. 1,25,550/- Total …… Rs. 7,53,300/-

On the amount so due interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum has been given from the date of taking possession. The petitioners have given to this Court a calculation chart (prepared by Jiswal & Co. Chartered Accountants) which is Annexure-8. A chart of this nature was prepared as per direction of this court in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1978 (R) decided on 18 May 1979 and was filed in the executing Court. Annexure-8 is as follows:—

Cost of 4.65 acres of land @ Rs. 1,35,000 Rs. 6,27,750.00 Add: 15% solatium plus severance 5% Due… Rs. 1,25,550.00 Rs. 7,53,300.00 Interest… Rs. Principal Rs. 7,53,300.00 Interest on Rs. 7,53,300/- @ 6% from 23-9-1954 to 30-3-1955 (6 months 7 days). Rs. 23,477.85 Less paid on 30-3-1955 Rs. 20,877.00 Due… 2,600.85 7,53,300.00 Interest on Rs. 7,53,300.00 @ 6% (from 1.4.1955 to 19-4-1955) (i.e 18 days). Due… Rs. 2,259.90 4,860.75 7,53,300.00 Less paid on 19-4-1955 Rs. 1,47,00.00 Due… Rs. 4,860.75 1,42,138.25 Nil 6,11,160.75 Interest on Rs. 6,11,161/- @ 6% from 20-3-55 to 13-7-1961 (6 years 2 months 24 days). Rs. 2,28,574.21 Proportionate Cost of J.C Rs. 614.00 Rs. 2,29,188.21 6,11,160.75 Less paid on 13-7-61 Rs. 21,727.58 Due… Rs. 2,07,460.63 6,11,160.75 Interest on Rs. 6,11,161/- @ 6% from 14-7-61 to 16-2-69, (6 years 7 months 2 days). Rs. 2,41,612.31 Proportionate cost of H.C Rs. 15,608.60 Due… Rs. 4,64,681.54 6,11,160.75 Less paid on 16-2.68 Rs. 6,46,833.12 Rs. 4,64,681.54 1,82,151.58 Due… Nil 4,29,009.17 Interest on Rs. 4,29,009, @ 6% (from 17-2-68 to 5-5-80), (i.e 12 years 2 months 19 days). Rs. 3,14,535.09 Add: Cost of S.C Rs. 18,764.00 Add: cost of Execution as awarded Rs. 5,000.00 Due… Rs. 3,38,299.09 4,29,009.17 Less paid on 5-5-80 Rs. 1,42,844.30 Due… Rs. 1,95,454.79 4,29,009.17 Interest on Rs. 4,29,009/- @ 6% from 6-5-80 to 18-5-31 (1 year 12 days). Rs. 26,598.55 Due… Rs. 2,22,053.34 4,29,009.17 Plus future interest till payment Total Due… Rs. 6,51,062.51.

It may be mentioned that the above chart shows that the amount received by the petitioners from the State Government from time to time has been deducted first from interest and costs and the balance if any, has been appropriated towards the principal amount of compensation. That was the direction given in Civil Revision 311 of 1978 (R). The figures in the chart have not been challenged but the learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar has seriously challenged the method of calculation. It is to be noted that compensation went on increasing from court to court, first in the court of the Judicial Commissioner then further enhanced by the High Court and thereafter further enhanced by the Supreme Court.

On 27 October, 1954, the Collector awarded Rs. 1,20,419-6-11 in respect of the first acquisition of 2.65 acres and Rs. 47,648-13-6 in respect of second acquisition of 2 acres.

On 22nd August, 1959, the Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi on a reference under Section 18 of the Act maintained the market value of the acquired land awarded by the Collector but he did not grant solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act. He further awarded 5% severance and 10% potential value.

On appeal the High Court awarded by its judgment dated 25 February, 1965, Rs. 90,000/- per acre for 4.65 acres, (a) 15% solatium on the market value: (b) 5% severance, and (c) 10% potential value and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of enhanced compensation from 23rd September, 1954. On 25 January, 1972, the Supreme Court modified the decree of the High Court and awarded:

For 4.65 acres Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre 15% Solatium and 5% severance amounting to 1,25,550/- and 6% interest besides costs.

The total amount of compensation thus being Rs. 7,53,300/-. The payments made by the judgment-debtor from time to time are:

on 30-3-1955 Rs. 20,877.00 on 19-4-1955 Rs. 1,47,000.00 on 13-7-1961 Rs. 21,727.58 on 16-2-1968 Rs. 6,46,833.12 on 5-5-1980 Rs. 1,42,844.30

2. Mr. L.M Singhvi contended that his client was entitled to compensation amount as determined by the Supreme Court but the Judicial Commissioner has re-determined the matter sitting over the Supreme Court decree and also over the order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1979 (R) and has illegally dismissed the execution case as being in full and final satisfaction of the decree. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party judgment-debtor is that the decree-holders are entitled to interest only on the enhanced amount determined by the courts from time to time as provided in Section 28 of the Act. It was submitted that the judgment-debtor went on paying from time to time and the same was paid only towards the principal amount and not towards interest and costs. It was contended that the judgment-debtor all along paid towards what was found due by the Collector or by the Judicial Commissioner or by the High Court and that the decree-holder having appropriated the same towards the principal amount cannot turn back and say that payment was only towards interest. The very same contention was urged in the court below and it has been accepted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. In my opinion, this submission is not acceptable. If it is accepted, it will amount to going back upon the decree of the Supreme Court. As held by this Court in Civil Revision 311 of 1978 on 18th May, 1979, all the decrees of the Courts below merged in the decree of the Supreme Court. After that it was not the business of the Judicial Commissioner as an executing Court to go behind the decree of the Supreme Court and sit over it. He had no justification to go behind the order of this Court either, which was passed in Civil Revision 311 of 1978. As above said the Supreme Court has given a clear decree in favour of the petitioner-land owner. There is no ambiguity in it and there should have been no difficulty in calculating the amount. The Supreme Court makes the money payable from 23 September, 1954, but the Judicial Commissioner thinks as if it was due from 25 January, 1972, the date of the decree of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave interest on the amount so due, that is, on the amount calculated under clauses (a) and (b) of the decree. The Judicial Commissioner ignored this direction and gave interest on the difference. The Supreme Court gave interest on the difference. The Supreme Court gave interest on the entire amount of compensation including 15% solatium and 5% severance but the Judicial Commissioner says that no interest can be paid on solatium or the severance under S. 28 of the Act. As regards the payment made from time to time by the State of Bihar (Judgment debtor), this court in Civil Revision 311 of 1978 (decided on 18 May, 1979) said that all such payments shall be adjusted first towards the cost and interest on the principal amount and if there is still some balance left then it will be appropriated towards the principal amount of compensation. In accordance with this direction a chart was prepared by the decree-holders and it was supplied to the Judicial Commissioner. In this Court also a similar chart prepared by the Chartered Accountant has been given. But the Judicial Commissioner ignored the calculation chart of the decree-holders and has held that the judgment-debtor deposited Rupees 1,49,763/- in excess of the amount due. He has also said in his order that the Supreme Court struck down the decree granting 5% severance. In fact, the Supreme Court has granted a decree including the 5% severance also. The Judicial Commissioner has held that the Judgement-debtor deposited Rs. 12,33,239.64 but the decree-holders were entitled only to Rs. 9,79,288/- and hence the balance of Rs. 2,53,357.64 was excess. He, therefore, allowed the objection made by the judgment-debtor under section case (sic) in full and final satisfaction. I think, this order of the Judicial Commissioner is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction because it goes against the direction of the Supreme Court as also against the direction of this Court.

I have already pointed out that the Supreme Court awarded interest on solatium as well as severance also but the Judicial Commissioner says in its order that no interest is payable to the plaintiff-decree holders on that amount. This is a clear disregard of the direction of the Supreme Court and it shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the Judicial Commissioner on the scope of the decree of the Supreme Court.

3. Mr. Mazumdar appearing for the State of Bihar contended that under S. 28 of the Act interest can be paid only on the excess amount of compensation. Section 28 runs thus:—

“28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.

If the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court.”

It is true that under S. 28 of the Act the Collector can be directed to pay interest only on excess. But it is to be noticed that there is another provision in the Act regarding payment of interest and that is S. 34. Under that section if the amount of compensation is not paid or is not deposited when possession of the land is taken then the Collector must pay that amount with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession until the amount is paid or deposited. S. 34 runs as follows:—

“34. Payment of interest.— When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of land the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.”

On a perusal of the above it is clear that S. 28 could apply when the amount originally awarded has already been paid or deposited and when the Court awards excess amount then interest on that excess only is payable. But if the compensation which is awarded either by the Collector or by Court is not paid then interest would run on the entire amount and not only on the excess and it would run from the date of dispossession. It is to be borne in mind that the Supreme Court decree does not mention S. 28 or 34 of the Act, it gives interest on the amount found due. In that view of the matter also the interest is clearly payable on the whole amount found due after calculation under clauses (a) and (b) of the decree of the Supreme Court, less the payment made by Judgment-debtor from time to time. There cannot be any Justification to go behind that decree. The right to receive interest takes the place of the right to retain possession (see the case of Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC 908). In Ingle Wood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, AIR 1928 PC 287, interest was allowed on the whole amount which was found due. The same principle was followed in Province of Bengal v. Pran Kissen Law & Co. AIR 1950 Cal 498. But the question does not arise for determination in view of the clear mandate of the decree of the Supreme Court allowing interest on the entire amount due including the solatium and severance from the date of taking possession. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being the executing Court had no jurisdiction to go behind that decree and to re-determine the matter afresh. He had merely to calculate the interest as per direction of the Supreme Court.

4. Counsel for the judgment-debtor next urged that the Judicial Commissioner is right in refusing interest on solatium and in support of this contention he has relied on (1973) 1 SCC 109 : AIR 1973 SC 305 (Union of India v. Ram Mehar). The argument is not well conceived. In the said case what fell for consideration before their Lordships was the provision of S. 4(3) of the Act (Amendment and Validation Act, 1967). Grover, J. speaking for the Bench made it clear at the very outset that the sole point for determination was with regard to the true meaning and construction of the expression “market value” employed in the aforesaid provision. Therefore, it is manifest that what was construed in the said judgment was the term ‘market value’ as used in the Amending and Validation Act. It was in that particular context that their Lordships observed that “market value” did not include within it the amount of solatium and, therefore, the rate of interest prescribed by S. 4(3) was confined to the market value of land alone. Ram Mehar's case, therefore, is of no aid whatsoever to the State of Bihar. On a depth examination of the facts of that case it will appear that the observations made in that case rather help the petitioner-landowners. In that case their Lordships have made (sic) it clear, compensation. It was observed (para 6):

“……The additional amount of 15% certainly forms part of the amount of compensation because under S. 23 the compensation is to consist of what is provided for in sub-sec. (1) and the additional amount of 15% on the market value of the land acquired. But compensation and market value are distinct expressions and have been used as such in the Acquisition Act………”

And again.—

“……If market value and compensation were intended by the legislature to have the same meaning it is difficult to comprehend why the word ‘compensation’ in Ss. 28 and 34 and not ‘market value’ was used. The key to the meaning of the word ‘compensation’ is to be found in S. 23(1) and that consists (a) of the market value of the land and (b) the sum of 15% on such market value which is stated to be the consideration for the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Market value is, therefore, only one of the components in the determination of the amount of compensation……”

In view of the above observation it must be held that 15% solatium is an integral part of the amount of compensation and interest is payable on the same. I have already pointed out that the Supreme Court in the present case has given a clear direction to pay interest on that amount also.

5. Counsel next relied on (1977) 1 SCC 46 : (AIR 1976 SC 1721) (State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal) for the purpose of showing that the amount of solatium of 15% awarded under S. 23(2) of the Act, strictly speaking, was not a part of the award of compensation as it was not to be mentioned in the prescribed form under S. 26(1). That was a case dealing with Jagir's Abolition Act, 1953 and Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 and the amount of compensation was to be determined according to the provisions of these Acts. The facts of that case are quite different and are of no help for deciding the present case. The central fact in the present case remains that 15% solatium was awarded to the present petitioner-landowners by the Supreme Court and interest was also allowed thereon. The Judicial Commissioner has acted, I think, without jurisdiction in thinking that the compensation will not include the amount of solatium and severance. That view is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. His order is not only without jurisdiction but it has occasioned a failure of justice and caused irreparable injury to the decree-holder owners. It is a colossal disregard of the order of the Supreme Court and of this Court as well. As a result of the order under challenge great injustice has been done to the petitioners. The acquisition was made in 1954 but even by 1981 the landowners have not yet received their full compensation amount with interest thereon due to prolonged litigation. In the words of V.R Krishna Iyer, J. “This provokes the comment that litigation is far too long lived to hold any realistic promise of fruits to the parties to the dispute.”

6. On a consideration of the submissions raised on behalf of the parties I am of the opinion that the order of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 27th August, 1979 is illegal, without jurisdiction and has caused irreparable injury to the petitioners and it must be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside. The revision petition is allowed. I am further of the opinion that the calculation chart (Annexure-8) filed in this Court on behalf of the petitioner-land-owners is in accordance with the decree of the Supreme Court and it is accepted as correct. It follows that the petitioner-decree-holders are entitled to the balance of compensation and further interest as per chart Annexure-8. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, as executing court, before whom also such an account was filed by the decree-holder, must now proceed with the execution case (Execution case 78 of 1974) for the balance amount which is now due to the decree-holders. There shall be no order as to costs of this civil revision.

Petition allowed.