# FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP. BY DISTRICT MANAGER v. YARLAGADDA NARAYANA APPARAO AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 600
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.5725-5726 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Harjit Singh Bedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/food-corporation-of-india-kakinada-rep-by-district-manager-v-yarlagadda-23566
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c
s.23(2) - Solatium - Liability to pay- Held: Matter needs
re-consideration in the light of observation in Gurpreet singh's
case - Remitted to High Court.
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 -
relied on.
D
.., .
Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizer Corpn.
of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 71 ; Sunder v. Union of
India (2001) 7 SCC 211 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
E
(1996) 2 sec 11
referred to
Para 2
(2001) 1 sec 211
referred to
Para 2
(2006) s sec 457
relied on
Para 3
F

## Text

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 600
,,....
'
A
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKINADA
REP. BY DISTRICT MANAGER
v.
YARLAGADDA NARAYANA APPARAO AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.5725-5726 of 2008)
B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c
s.23(2) - Solatium - Liability to pay- Held: Matter needs
re-consideration in the light of observation in Gurpreet singh's
case - Remitted to High Court.
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 -
relied on.
D
.., .
Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National Fertilizer Corpn.
of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 71 ; Sunder v. Union of
India (2001) 7 SCC 211 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
E
(1996) 2 sec 11
referred to
Para 2
(2001) 1 sec 211
referred to
Para 2
(2006) s sec 457
relied on
Para 3
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
~ '"
5725-5726 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.3.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5048 of 2001
G
Amrendra Sharan, ASG, Sukumar Pattajosh, Arvind Kumar
Tiwary, Rakesh K. Singh and Sudarsh Menon for the Appellant.
+ •
B. Kanta Rao, Krishnamurthy, B. Sriram and Sudha Gupta
for the Respondents.
H
600
FOOD CORP OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP BY DIST. MANAGER
601
.•
--.J
v. YARLAGADDA NARAYANAAPPARAO & ORS.
'.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to. the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allow-
).
ing the Civil Revision Petition Nos.5048 and 5088 of 2001, filed
B
by the present respondent no.1 in each case. In the civil revision petition itwas indi<'.ated that th_e proforma respondents in
these appeals were not necessary parties. The basic dispute
relates to liability to interest ori the amount envisaged under
Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the c
'Act') conveniently called "solatium". The High Court allowed the
civil revision petitions being of the view that the decision of this
Court in Prem Nath Kapur arid Anr. v. National Ferlilizer Corpn.
of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996 (2) sec 71) was overruled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder V. Union of India D
..
~
(2001 (7) sec 211) .
3. Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, submitted that both Prem Nath's case (supra) and Sunder's case
(supra) were considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457). It was E
submitted that view in Prem Nath's case (supra)was stated to
be correct one in the said case. Therefore, the view of the High
Court cannot be maintained.
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent subF
--1
mitted that the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant interference.
5. In Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) this Court observed,
inter alia, as follows:
"53. Thi.ls, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential G
ratio jn Prem Nath Kapur (1996 (2) SCC 71) on
;. *
appropriation being at different stages is justified though
if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardeedecree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same
on the general principle of appropriation, first towards H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
~ .
A
interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal,
unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards
specified heads by the judgment-debtor while making the
deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We,
thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect
B
of appropriation.
54. One other question also was sought to be raised and
answered by this Bench though not referred to it.
Considering that the question arises in various cases
pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the
c
counsel to address us on that question. That question is
whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (2001 (7)
sec 211), the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled
to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not
specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an
D
execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore,
..,, .
the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the
same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary
implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference
Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will
E
have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium
based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court
cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the
Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not
specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or
F
in cases where claim had not been made and rejected
either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the
r·-
appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is
awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to
apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation
G
awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest
on the amount could be directed to be deposited in
execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest
on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions
...
~
'
and not in closed executions and the execution court will
H
be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the
FOOD CORP. OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP BY DIST MANAGER
603
v. YARLAGADDA NARAYANAAPPARAO & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any prior A
period. We also clarify that this will not entail any
reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree•
holder. ihis we have indicated by way of clarification also
in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the
1~
Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of B
litigation on this question."
*
6. In view of what has been stated above, it would be appropriate for the High Court to consider the matter afresh in
view of the aforesaid quoted observations of this Court. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh considerC
ation.
7. The appeals are disposed of without any order as to
costs.
D.G.
, Appeal disposed of.
D