Depositing compensation directly in court without notifying parties does not exempt the liability for interest under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext P7 order passed in EA No.43/2015 in E.P No.18/2006 in LAR No.25/1999 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nedumangad, the applicant – Kerala State Electricity Board – is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents in the original petition are the decree holder and the judgment debtor before the Execution Court.

2. The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the original petition, are: the petitioner had for the purpose of the constructing the Meenmutti Hydro Electric Project requested the second respondent - the State of Kerala – to acquire an extent of 38.75 Ares in Palode Village, which included the property of the first respondent – decree holder. The matter was referred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nedumangad, under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act , as LAR No.25/1999. The reference case was jointly tried with LAR No.20/1999. The Reference Court by Ext P1 decree directed the second respondent to pay the first respondent an amount of Rs.1,97,951/- as enhanced compensation, Rs.23,754/- as additional compensation and Rs.59,385/- as solatium with 9% interest per annum on the aggregate amount including solatium for a period of one year from 21.12.1998 and, thereafter, interest @ 15% per annum. On receipt of the proceedings dated 18.12.2003 issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.4,88,748/- before the Reference Court on 10.3.2004. Thereafter, the District Collector, continued to send communications to the petitioner to deposit the decree amount. As per the calculation statement filed by the petitioner, they have excessively deposited an amount of Rs.25,040/-. Hence the petitioner filed EA No.43/2015 along with a calculation statement to direct the first respondent to redeposit the excess amount of Rs.25,040/-. The Execution Court, by the impugned Ext P7 order, dismissed EA No.43/2015. Ext P7 is erroneous as it is passed without considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inPrem Nath Kapur and another vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd and others [1996 (2) SCC

71]. Hence the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri. B.Pramod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.

4. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext P7 order.

5. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, it is discernible from Ext P3 execution petition that the petitioner is not a party in the execution proceedings.

6. The petitioner has contended that they had on their own volition deposited an amount of Rs.4,88,748/- on 10/3/2004 before the court below as evidenced by Ext P2 receipt.

7. Undisputedly, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, (Acquiring Authority) had called upon the petitioner to deposit the balance amount due under the decree. It is evident from the impugned order, that the amount was deposited before the Execution Court without notice to the decree holder or the judgment debtor.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in Prem Nath Kapur (supra) empathetically held that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under Sec.23(1) of the Act continues to subsist until it is paid to the owner or deposited in the Court as provided under Sec.34 read with Sec.31 of the Act.

9. In the case at hand, the petitioner who is not a party in the execution petition, without paying the amount to the Acquiring Authority or giving notice to the decree holder has deposited the amount before the court below as per Ext P2 receipt.

10. When the petitioner had utilised the machinery of the State to acquire the property, it was imperative on the part of the petitioner to have handed over the amount to the Acquiring Authority or at least intimated them and the decree holder that money has been deposited in the Court.

11. Merely by depositing the amount directly in the Court, without notice to the parties on record, it will not exonerate the lia