IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7146 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** General Manager, IB Valley Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, P.O./P.S- Brajarajnagar, Jharsuguda … Petitioner -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through Collector, Jharsuguda, Dist-Jharsuguda 2. Faiz Mohammad, S/o-Fakir Mohammad R/o Lajkura, Brajrajnagar, P.O./P.S- Brajarajnagar, Dist.-Jharsuguda … Opp. Parties Adocates appeared : For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Bhagban Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE ANAND CHANDRA BEHERA ---------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 08.05.2026 --------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 21st November, 2024 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Jharsuguda in Execution Case No.31/94 of 1997-2004, wherein it made a calculation, which is not acceptable to the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited-Petitioner. 3. Facts in nutshell necessary for proper adjudication of the case is that the land of the claimant-Decree Holder (D.Hr.) (Opposite Party herein) was acquired for coal mines under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Compensation of Rs.7,627.93/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jharsuguda for the land acquired. The claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of the award, filed an application for enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Sambalpur under Section 18 of the Act and was registered as L.A. Misc. Case No.37 of 1988. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Sambalpur enhanced the compensation to @ Rs.80,000/- per acre along with solatium at the rate 30%, additional compensation at the rate of 12% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession till the final payment. It was also directed inter alia that if the Petitioner [the Judgment Debtor (J. Dr.)] fails to pay the amount within one year, then interest at the rate of 15% per annum would be payable till the date of realization. Alleging non-payment of the decretal amount, claimant-D.Hr. filed Execution Case No.31/94 of 1997- 2004 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Jharsuguda. Learned Executing Court vide his order dated 21st November, 2024 made a calculation and held that the J.Dr. (Petitioner herein) is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,94,695/- (rupees one lakh ninety four thousand six hundred ninety five only) to the D.Hr. Assailing the same, the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited-Petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, has filed this writ petition. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that learned Executing Court has committed a gross error in the calculation by making the J.Dr. liable to pay interest on interest. The Executing Court, instead of calculating interest on the compensation amount, applied interest of 15% on the entire amount, which is inclusive of compensation+ solatium + interest at the rate of 9% as well 15% up to 19th February, 1999. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to the calculation made by learned Executing Court in the impugned order, which is reproduced hereunder: CALCULATION “Mouza-Barajrajnagar Town Unit No.1(Lajkura) L.A Case No. 37 of 1988 Khata No.382 acquired Area of Ac.0.272 decimal Name of the Awardees- Fiaz Mohammad Date of 4(1) Notification-08.03.1984 (Published in EOG No.593) Date of Award- 23.11.1987 Date of Possession- 18.02.1989 Land Value @ Rs.80,000/- per acre Rs.80,000/- X Ac0.272 decimal =Rs. 21,760/- 30% Solatium of Rs.21,760/- =Rs. 6,528/- Addl. Compensation @ 12% per annum (From 4(1) Notification date i.e. 08.03.1984 to Date of declaration of award i.e. 23.11.1987) =Rs.9,701/- (For 1356 days) Total = Rs. 37,989/- Payment made earlier by LAO on 08.04.1989 (-)Rs.7,628/- Balance Amount =Rs. 30,361 /- Interest @9% for one year From 24.11.1987 to 23.11.1988 =Rs.2,732/- Interest @ 15% from 24.11.1988 to 18.02.1999 (3739 days) =Rs. 46,652/- Total = Rs79,745/- Deduct the interim decreetal amount deposited (-)=Rs.7,000/- Balance to be paid =Rs.72,745/- Interest @ 15% from 19.02.1999 to 05.11.2024 (9391 days) (+) =Rs. 2,80,650/- Balance to be paid =Rs. 3,53,395/- JDR No.2 deposited (-) =Rs. 1,58,700/- JDR No.2 liable to pay =Rs.1,94,695/-” 4.1. It is his submission that the learned Executing Court has calculated the amount properly till it reached the balance amount of Rs.30,361/-. But thereafter, instead of calculating the interest on the said amount, learned Executing Court calculated the interest on Rs.72,745/- which is inclusive of interest at the rate of 15% from 19th February, 1999 to 5th November, 2024 on the amount of Rs.72,745. Instead, it should have calculated interest at the rate of 15 % on Rs.30,361/-. By doing so, the learned Executing Court impliedly imposed interest on interest. Hence, the calculation is erroneous and the Petitioner is not liable to pay the same. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the D.Hr.- Opposite Party, on the other hand, vehemently objects to the submission made by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel and submits that the learned Executing Court has committed no error in the calculation of interest on Rs.72,745. He also filed a calculation sheet, which is reproduced hereunder: “CALCULATION SHEET FILED ON BEHALF OF FAIZ MOHAMMAD- O.P.No.2 Land Acquired- Ac.0.272 dec. Notification U/s 4 of L.A. Act - Dt.8.3.1984. Award by L.A.O. - Dt.23.11.1987. Order passed in F.A.No.277/1995 filed by MCL – Dt. 16.10.2009. 1. Land value fixed/confirmed by this Hon'ble Court @ Rs.80,000/ per acre in F.A.277/1995 filed by MCL. Rs. 21,760.00 2. Solatium @ 30% +Rs. 6,528.00 3. Addl. Compensation @ 12% p.a. from date of Sec.4(l)Notn. to the date of award i.e. from dt.8.3.1984 to 23.11.1987 (1356 days) + Rs. 9.701.00 4. Compensation for land as per order passed by Hon'ble H.C. Rs. 37.989.00 5. Less payment made by L.A.O. (-) Rs. 7.628.00 6. Balance amount which should have been paid by M.C.L. Rs.30,361.00 7. Interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of award for one year i.e. from 24.11.1987 to 23.11.1988. (+) Rs. 2,732.00 8. Interest @ 15% p.a. from 24.11.1988 to 18.2.1999 (the date of deposit as per order of this Hon'ble Court) for 3739 days on (+) Rs. 46.652.00 9. Sub Total. Rs. 79,745.00 10. Less deposit as per order of this Hon'ble Court. (-) Rs. 7.000.00 11. Balance to be paid. Rs. 72,745.00 12. Interest @15% p.a. on Rs.30,361.00 from 19.2.1999 to 16.10.2009 i.e. the date of order of this Hon'ble Court in F.A.No.277/1995 quantifying the amount of compensation (for 3889 days) Rs. 48.535.00 13. Quantified amount payable by MCL as on dt. 16.10.2009 as per order passed in F.A.No.277/1995. Rs. 1,21,280.00 14. Interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs. 1,21,280.00 from 17.10.2009 to 7.2.2018 i.e. the date of deposit of Rs. 1,58,700.00 in Execution case. (+) Rs. 1.51.167.00 15. Total amount payable as on dt. 17.10.2009. Rs.2,72,447.00 16. Less - Amount deposited in Execution Case. On dt.7.2.2018 (-) Rs. 1.58.700.00 17. Balance amount payable by M.C.L. as on 7.2.2018. Rs.l,13,747.00 MCL is liable to pay such balance amount of Rs.1,13,747/- along with interest @15 p.a. till the date of payment.” 5.1. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner-MCL submitted a calculation sheet, which is reproduced hereunder: “CALCULATION SHEET IN EXECUTION CASE NO.31/94 OF 1997/2204 (ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.05.1995 IN L.A. CASE NO.37/1988) (In matter of Faiz Mohammad-Vrs-State & MCL) Sl. No. Description Details 1 Total acquired land (in Ac.) 0.272 2 Compensation awarded by Hon'ble Court (in Rs.)/per Acre 80,000.00 3 Land value Rs. 80000.00 x 0.272 21,760.00 4 Solatium @ 30% 6,528.00 5 Addl. Compensation @ 12% p.a. from the date of 4(1) notification i.e. 08.03.1984 to date of award i.e. 23.11.1987 (1356 days) 9700.79 6 Total land value as per award of court 37,989.79 7 Payment made earlier by LAO(-) 7,628.00 8 Balance to be paid 30,360.79 9 9% interest p.a. for one year i.e. from 4.11.1987 to 23.11.1988 2,732.47 10 15% interest p.a. from dt. 24.11.1988 to 31.12.2017 (10628 days) 1,32,605.94 11 Total differential amount (in Rs.) 1,65,699.19 12 Earlier deposited with the court as per order of the Hon'ble High Court (-) 7,000.00 13 Balance differential amount 1,58,699.19 Rupees One lakh fifty-eight six hundred ninty-nine and paise nineteen only.” 5.2. It is the submission Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said amount i.e. Rs.1,58,699.19 has already been paid to the claimant-D.Hr., which is not disputed by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2-D.Hr. 5.3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the D.Hr., however, submits that the claimant in addition to the above, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,13,747/- as on 7th February, 2018. In support of his submission Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimant-D.Hr. relied upon the case of Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Ltd. vs. C. Govinda Padayachi and others: reported in (2006) 9 SCC 725, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “15. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 on account of the fact that by order dated 7th December, 1999, this Court while fixing a lump sum amount as compensation, took into consideration not only the value of the land acquired but solatium and interest as well. The interest that could have been claimed under Sections 28 and 33 of the above Act were, in fact, included in the lump sum amount till 7th December, 1999, and interest can be claimed by the respondent No.1 on the quantified amount only after 7th December, 1999 till the date of payment. 16. In our view, the High Court misconstrued its earlier order in A.S.N.190/1985 directing the appellant to deposit the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court and permitting the land owners to withdraw 50 per cent of such amount without security and the remaining 50 per cent upon furnishing of security. While passing its order on 27th October, 2004, the High Court appears to have missed sight of the fact that when the direction was given in A.S.No.190/1985 to the appellant herein to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, the award was yet to be finalized and that the award was ultimately finalized on 7th December, 1999 by this Court and that the respondent No.1 would, therefore, be entitled to compensation in terms of the amount as quantified on 7th December, 1999. In our view, in the light of the order passed by this Court on 7th December, 1999, quantifying the compensation amount to include solatium and interest, the provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the above Act would no longer be attracted and the respondent No.1 would only be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the quantified amount on and from 7th December, 1999 till the date of actual payment. 17. In that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the High Court impugned in the appeal is set aside and it is directed that out of the sum of Rs. 1,05,548/- remitted to the court below by the bank, the respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.21,562.74, being the balance amount of the total compensation payable in terms of the compensation quantified by this Court's Order dated 7th December, 1999, together with interest thereupon calculated at the rate of 15 per cent from 7th December, 1999, till the date of payment of the balance amount of the award. Having regard to the fact that the lands were acquired between 1975 and 1978, such payment should be made expeditiously, but positively within a period of six months from the date of the communication of this judgment. The amount left over after payment of the aforesaid sums are to be paid to the appellant.” 5.4. It is his submission that for delayed payment, the Petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% on the entire amount, which is inclusive of compensation and interest thereon, as rightly calculated by learned Executing Court. Page 9 of 11 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Peruse the materials on record. 6.1. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the claimant-D.Hr. is entitled to the interest on the total amount (inclusive of solatium and interest) or he is entitled to 15% on the compensation only. 6.2. Section 28 of the Act reads as under: “28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation- If the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court: Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.” 6.3. On a perusal of Section 28 of the Act, it is clear that the claimant is entitled to 9% interest per annum on the compensation so enhanced up to one year from the date of taking over possession and beyond one year, the claimant would be entitled to 15% interest till the date of payment. Thus, Section 28 of the Act makes it clear that the interest is payable on the compensation only and not on the total amount inclusive of compensation, solatium and interest. 6.4. On a perusal of the calculation made by learned Executing Court, it appears that the Executing Court calculated the balance amount at Rs.30,361/- and included an interest at the rate of 9% for one year i.e. from 24th November, 1987 to 23rd November 1988, i.e., Rs.2,732/-. Thereafter, an interest at the rate of 15% from 24th November, 1988 to 18th February, 1999 (3739 days) was calculated at Rs.46,652/-.Thus, the total amount came to Rs.79,745 /-. Then it deducted an amount of Rs.7,000/- already paid to the claimant-D.Hr. Thus, the amount came to Rs.72,745/-. But it made an error in calculating the interest from 19th February, 1999 to 5th November, 2024. Instead of calculating the interest on Rs.30,361/-, it calculated the interest at the rate of 15% on Rs.72,745/-, which was inclusive of interest at the rate of 9% and 15%, which is not permissible in terms of Section 28 of the Act. Thus, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner is correct in submitting that an interest on interest has been calculated by learned Executing Court while computing the amount to be paid to the D.Hr. 6.5. There cannot be any dispute to the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Ltd., (supra) But, the observation therein is of no assistance to the Opposite Party No.2-D.Hr., as the observation therein is made on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, which is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Page 11 of 11 6.6. In view of the above, the calculation made by learned Executing Court is erroneous and it requires fresh computation. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Executing Court to calculate the amount afresh keeping in mind the observation made hereinabove. 8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (A.C Behera) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 8th day of May, 2026/ sashikant