Back
1997 Supreme(All) 46
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.K.Seth
U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD
Versus
SATYA PRAKASH
Decided On : 17 January 1997
C. M. Application No. 66996 of 1995; [in First Appeal No. 462 of 1991]
PRAKASH KRISHNA, R. K.SINGHAL,
The Government is exempt from furnishing security in certain cases, including cases where it is defending a suit in its official capacity.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - CALCULATION OF SOLATIUM - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION - INTEREST - SECURITY FOR WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITED AMOUNT - EXEMPTION TO GOVERNMENT FROM FURNISHING SECURITY - ORDER XXVII RULE 8-A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a body corporate, had deposited half of the decretal amount as directed by the court. The respondents, the claimant-respondents, contended that the appellant should deposit the entire decretal amount and furnish security for the withdrawal of the deposited amount. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that it had complied with the court's order and that it was not required to furnish security in view of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had substantially complied with the order dated 30.8.1991 directing it to deposit half of the decretal amount. The court further held that the appellant was not required to furnish security in view of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts the Government from furnishing security in certain cases. The court also held that the respondents were not entitled to any order directing the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had complied with the court's order dated 30.8.1991 directing it to deposit half of the decretal amount? 2. Whether the appellant was required to furnish security for the withdrawal of the deposited amount? 3. Whether the respondents were entitled to any order directing the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had substantially complied with the order dated 30.8.1991 directing it to deposit half of the decretal amount. The court reasoned that the appellant had deposited a substantial amount of money and that the respondents had not shown that they would suffer any prejudice if the appellant was not required to deposit the entire decretal amount. 2. The court held that the appellant was not required to furnish security in view of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts the Government from furnishing security in certain cases. The court reasoned that the appellant was a body corporate that was acting on behalf of the Government and that it was therefore entitled to the same exemption from furnishing security as the Government. 3. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to any order directing the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount. The court reasoned that the respondents had not shown that they would suffer any prejudice if the appellant was not required to deposit the entire decretal amount.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the respondents' application and confirmed the interim order that had been passed.
The respondents has made this application and prayed that the decree be allowed to be executed since the defendant appellant has not complied with the order dated 30. 8. 1991, directing the defendant- appellant to deposit half of the decretal amount. According to the calcula tion of the respondents the decretal amount would come to about rupees 45 lacs and odd. Whereas the defendant-appellant has deposited only rupees twenty lacs. Accord ing to the claimant-respondents the amount deposited is short by about rupees two lacs.
2. The defendant-appellant on the other hand filed an application dated 5. 2. 1996 contending that according to its calculation the amount is about rupees 27 lacs and odd and half of the said amount would be around rupees 13 lacs and odd. Whereas he has deposited rupees 20 lacs, being in excess by rupees seven lacs.
3. In order to decide the question, a report was asked for from the learned Dis trict Judge, Meerut, who had" reported by an order dated 2. 9. 1994 that the amount deposited may be called in later and spirit non-compliance of the order-dated 30. 8. 1991, In the application dated 5. 2. 1996 the defendant- appellant had sought for rejection of the said report dated 2. 9. 1994.
4. A perusal of the report dated 2. 9. 1994 reveals that it had negatived both the contention of the respondents and still then had held without proper calculation that the deposit was not in compliance of the High Courts order. The conclusion of the said report appears to be inconsistent with the finding made in the earlier part of the report. But at the same time it has not endeavoured to calculate the amount even prima-facie so as to ascertain as to whether half of the amount has been deposited or not.
5. Therefore, the concluding part of the said report being inconsistent with the earlier part of the report, the said report can not be relied upon.
6. The main question for determina tion is as to whether there has been com pliance of the order dated 30. 8. 1991. From the affidavit filed in support of the applica tion dated 5. 2. 1996 by the appellant the cal culation of the total compensation payable in terms of the decree has been given. The respondents have its calculation in An-nexure-CA2 to the counter-affidavit, where in he has pointed out that the total amount payable is about rupees 45 lacs and odd. The same has also been reflected in the rejoinder- affidavit in para-3 Sri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel appearing on be half of claimant-respondents does not dis pute the figure so mentioned in para-3 of the rejoinder- affidavit and admits that the same represent correct translation of An-nexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit.
7. A comparison of the two calcula tions made by the appellant and the claimant-respondents indicate that the respondents have included the additional compensation for the purposes of calcula tion of solatium and then went on calculat ing the interest on the total amount of com pensation, additional compensation and solatium and thus arrived at a figure of rupees 45 lacs and odd. Whereas the appel lant has calculated the solatium only the market value excluding additional compen sation and had thereupon computed inter est accordingly.
8. Sri Prakash Krishna, learned coun sel for the respondents contends relying on the decision in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Mohendra Singh, 1996 ALJ 1883 : 1996 (2) JCLR 144 (All); that the present appeal having been preferred against the money decree it is in cumbent upon the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount. According to him in view of the said judgment it is incumbent upon the appellant to deposit whole of the decretal amount. Therefore, he makes fur ther prayer that the appellant should deposit the balance amount as well. He fur ther submits that the appellant may be directed to furnish security for the purposes of withdrawing the said amount.
9. The said judgment has laid down a principle, on which no
