G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated December 22, 1990 passed by learned District Judge, Ambala in Execution Application No. 126/10 of 1989.
(2.) IN order to understand the controversy raised in this revision, it is necessary to notice few facts. Land of the claimants of this case and others was acquited by the State of Haryana On a reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ( for short 'the Act'), learned District Judge came to the conclusion [hat the claimants were entitled to compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard in addition to solatium at the rate of 30% and all other benefits including those envisaged Under Section 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. It seems that the claim of the landowners was satisfied. They, however, on a later date moved various applications claiming more amounts. The respondent herein is one of such claimants. The respondent had also moved an execution application as noticed above for the recovery of the balance amount of enhanced compensation. Details of the claim were not furnished by the claimants. However, on the direction of the court, amount of claim was disclosed which according to the claimants was required to be paid by the State of Haryana in the execution proceedings. The claim made was to a sum of Rs. 1,16,147. 42 paise. The judgment-debtor, State of Haryana filed its reply to the statement of account tiled by the landowners. A specific plea was taken that interest at the rate of 12% is payable on the market value of the land.
(3.) IN the aforesaid situation, a question arose before the executing court whether 12% interest is payable on the amount after adding 30% solatium to the market value. Learned District Judge after relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati and Ors. , (1980) 82 P. L. R. 122 came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to interest at 12% on the amount of solatium as well. The other point that arose for consideration before the learned District Judge was, whether the claimants are entitled to adjust partial payment made by the State first towards the amount of costs and interest etc. and balance towards the principal. This question was also answered by the learned District Judge in favour of the claimants in view of the judgment of this court in Trilochan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1990-1) 97 P. L. R. 311. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Haryana has filed the present revision petition.;