NIRMAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 2.6.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Hissar directing that the respondents are not held entitled to get interest on solatium, and additional amount and they can adjust the amount paid or deposited by the judgment- debtors as per general rule of adjustment i.e., firstly towards interest and costs and then towards the principal. Alongwith the petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed as there was delay of 77 days in filing the revision petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly and candidly made a statement that the respondents have no objection if the delay is condoned as the delay was the result of procedural delay of the office. So, in view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, the delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for hearing on merits.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record that the case law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The proposition whether the State is liable to pay interest on the amount awarded under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been settled in Sunder v. Union of India and others, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 727 (SC) : (2001-3)129 PLR 860 (SC) wherein it has been held as under : 22. "In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says : "On making an award under Section 11, the Controller shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section." The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay "the compensation awarded by him" to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from section 34 that the expression awarded amount would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. 23. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that "if such compensation is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year" on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the Legislator (Legislature ?) when that section was framed or enacted." ;