Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is confined solely to the question of interest. In other words, the entitlement of interest on the amount awarded by Arbitrator for the requisition of the premises under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, is the issue. The principles upon which the compensation on this aspect is payable are by now well settled. In Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, (1961) 3 SCR 676 this Court reiterated the principles at page No. 694 of the SCR report as follows :"In Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Burnswick Electric Power Commission, 1928 AC 492 it was held by the Privy Council that "upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principal sum awarded from the date when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows a contrary intention." Dealing with the argument that the expropriation with which the Privy Council was concerned was not effected for private gain, but for the good of the public at large, it observed "but for all that, the owner is deprived of his property in this case as much as in the other, and the rule has long been accepted in the interpretation of statutes that they are not to be held to deprive individuals of property without compensation unless the intention to do so is made quite clear. The right to receive the interest takes the place of the right to retain possession and is within the rule". It would thus be noticed that the claim for interest proceeds on the assumption that when the owner of immovable property loses possession of it, he is entitled to claim interest in place of right to retain possession. The question which we have to consider is whether the application of this rule is intended to be excluded by the Act of 1948, and as we have already observed, the mere fact that S. 5(3) of the Act makes S. 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act., 1894 applicable we cannot reasonably infer that the Act intends to exclude the application of this general rule in the matter of the payment of interest. That is the view which the Punjab High Court has taken in Surjan Singh v. East Punjab Government, AIR 1957 Punj 265) and we think rightly."
(2.) The same principle was reaffirmed not in the context of Acquisition of Immovable Property, which Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents tried to make a point before us, was highlighted in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1963) 2 Suppl. SCR 971 where speaking for the Court Mr. Justice Hidayatullah, as learned Chief Justice of India then has observed: "The reason of the rule was stated a long time ago by Lord St. Leonard L. C. in Birch v. Joy, (1852) 3 HLC 565, 10 ER 222 as follows:- "The parties change characters, the property remains at law just where it was, the purchaser has the money in his pocket, and the seller still has the estate vested in him; but they exchange characters in a Court of Equity, the seller becomes the owner of the money and the purchaser becomes the owner of the estate." On entering possession the purchaser becomes entitled to the rents but if he has not paid the price, interest in equity is deemed payable by him on the purchase price which belongs to the seller. This principle was applied by the House of Lords in cases of compulsory purchases. In Swift and Co. v. Board of Trade, (1925) AC 520, Viscount Cave L.C. gave the reason that the practice rests upon the principle that the taking of possession is an implied agreement to pay interest which was stated by Sir William Grant M.R. in Fludyer v. Cocker, (1805) 33 ER 10, This principle was further extended by the Privy Council to the compulsory taking over of a business as a going concern in International Railway Co. v. Niagara Parks Commission, 1941 AC 328."
(3.) It was noted by Justice Hidayatullah that this principle has also been accepted by this Court in Satinder Singh v. Amrao Singh, (supra). The principle stated was followed in Hirachand Kothari (dead) through LRs. v. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 1 Suppl. SCR 644 where this Court noted the principle at page No. 655 of the SCR report.;