K. Ramaswamy, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated May 27, 1994 made in Civil Revision No. 553 of 1993 by a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The admitted facts are that under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short, the 'Act') the land of Gokul Narain, the first respondent, along with other lands for construction of over-bridge, was acquired and possession thereof was taken on June 22, 1965. The Additional Collector made his award on June 30, 1976 awarding a sum of Rs. 70,699.82 as compensation which included value of the building also. On appeal, the District Judge by order dated January 27, 1978 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2/- per square foot. The appellant as well as the respondent carried the matter in revision to the High Court. By order dated March 18, 1983 the High Court remanded the matter to the District Judge, with certain directions, for fresh disposal thereof. The District Judge by order dated November 19, 1985 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11. 50 per square foot and on further revision and remand by the High Court by order dated December 18, 1989 also applied the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central LA Act) as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and awarded solatium, interests and additional amount under Sections 23 (2), 28 and 23(1-A) of the Central LA Act. In the meanwhile, the appellant had paid the compensation amount on March 7, 1977 in a sum of Rs. 1,18,760/- and a further sum of Rs. 44,195.60 on May 11,1982. The respondent claimed adjustment of the said amounts towards interest and filed the execution for the balance amount. The High Court by order dated August 4, 1988 dismissed the evasion of the respondent claiming adjustment of the amounts paid towards interest and his entitlement to claim the balance amount observing that the respondent is not entitled to benefit under Act 68 of 1984. The respondent filed the execution for recovery of the balance amount. The appellant filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) claiming that the cost of the acquired land worked out @ Rs. 11.50 per square foot to Rs. 1,19,026.22 and the cost of the building was Rs. 3,423.00. Interest payable @ 6% for period from June 22, 1965 up to July 3, 1977, the date of deposit, worked out to Rs. 85,981.16. The total compensation payable and interest worked out to Rs 208,432.36. The balance excess amount as on that date including interest was Rs. 89,672.38. Interest on the balance principle compensation @ 6% from that date up to May 11, 1982 worked out to Rs. 90,819.12. Rs. 46,23.62. The amount paid in compliance of the order of the High Court dated December 12, 1987 was Rs. 1,23,000/- Therefore, the excess amount paid to the respondent was Rs.76,376.38. Interest calculated @ 6% on the said excess amount for period from the date of the deposit till date of objections, viz., January 16, 1991 to which the appellant claims to be entitled is Rs. 14,231.46. Thus the appellant claims that he is entitled to receive from the respondents a total refund of Rs. 90,607.84 plus interest thereon @ 6% from January 18, 1991 till date of decision. The District Judge by the impugned order dated April 25, 1984 had dismissed the objections. On revision, the High Court by the impugned order dismissed the claim. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3.) The Act was amended by Rajasthan Amendment Act 29 of 1987 which came into force w.e.f. August 1, 1987. By reason thereof, the Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984 became applicable to acquisition under the Act from August 1, 1987. Section 60A of the Act, as inserted by the Amendment Act 29 of 1987, made transitory provision applicable to the pending matters. Pending the special leave petition, the first respondent died on February 17, 1995. A notice was issued on January 2, 1995. When the notice was not served, the appellant was permitted to take out dasti service by order dated February 5, 1996 and when the notice was taken, the appellant was informed that the respondent had died. Consequently, application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. was filed on February 12, 1996. The legal representatives received the notice as per the orders of this Court dated March 18, 1996. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.;