J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1166 and 1167 of 1988, as the question involved is common in all these cases.
(2.) The controversy between the parties before the executing Court was as to whether the interest is to be calculated from December 24, 1974,' when the possession was taken from the landowners or from the notification dated October 30, 1975, by which the land was acquired subsequently. On behalf of the judgment-debtors it was contended that the interest was to be calculated from October 30, 1975; particularly when deciding the reference it was not made clear that the interest was to be calculated from December 24, 1974. It was also pointed out that the executing Court cannot go behind the judgment in the land reference. The learned executing Court found that the decree-holder was entitled to the interest from October 30, 1975 and not from December 24, 1974.
(3.) The learned counsel for the decree-holder submitted that originally, the reference was decided on May 14, 1984, by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, but later on, an application was filed under section 152 and 153-A, read with section 151, which was allowed vide order dated February 20, 1986, in which it was made clear,- "Amendment be also made that the applicants will be entitled to 12% per annum enhancement on the amount of compensation from the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of award or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Amendment in the judgment be made." After this amendment, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the judgment-debtors that the claimants are not entitled to the interest from the date of taking possession of the land from them. It is not disputed that the possession was taken on December 24, 1974. That being so, the claimants are entitled to interest from that date. It appears that either the said amendment was not brought to the notice of the executing Court or it was overlooked by it while passing the impugned order.;