The Bombay High Court noted that since as per Respondent No. 1, there were lack of documents of title or heirship, the hence, the amount was withheld,  the present case would fall under Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”).

Therefore, the Respondent No.1 should have deposited the amount of compensation with the authority to which reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act lies. It was ruled that the subsequent communications about heirship or exchange of documents then became insignificant. 

The Bench opined that where compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, then, the Collector, for the first year, would have to pay interest @9% p.a., and for any period subsequent thereto @15% p.a., until the payment is made. 

Brief Facts:

The present petitions fall under 2013 Act, between the same parties, but different properties. 

The present writ petition has been filed to seek direction to Respondent No.1 to release compensation in relation to the properties and pay interest on the awarded amount. Since the compensation was released during pendency of the matter, the prayer for interest was pressed. 

Brief Background: 

The Petitioners own 25% undivided share in the property under Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021 and 100% in the property under Writ Petition No. 2966 of 2021. 

After the passing of the award and before the execution of the possession receipts, the Respondent No.2 had deposited the award amount with Respondent No.1.

Thereafter, the awardees were called upon to furnish bank details etc and a letter was issued by Respondent No.1 to this effect. However, the original awardees to whom letter was issued were no more at that time. 

Hence, the present Petitioners claimed to be legal heirs of the awardees and contacted Respondent No.1 and further made it amply clear that they intend to challenge the said Awards. 

The Petitioners contacted Respondent No.1 again and gave details as asked by Respondent No.1. 

Contentions of the Petitioners: 

It was asserted that as per Section 77 of 2013 Act, the Collector was duty bound to tender payment of compensation to the persons interested who are entitled to the Award. 

Arguing that the matter fell under Section 77(2), it was urged that the Respondent No. 1 ought to have deposited the compensation amount with the authority to whom the reference lied, however, admittedly this was not done, and the amount kept lying with Respondent No. 1. 

Further, if the amount is not paid or deposited before possession, then 9% p.a. interest has to be provided. 

Contentions of the Respondent No.1:

It was argued that Section 80 would be inapplicable as there was an inordinate delay in complying with the requisitions which were raised by Respondent No.1 for the purpose of disbursing the compensation amount. 

Contentions of the Respondent No.2:

It was urged that Respondent No.2 deposited amount before possession, hence, cannot be held responsible. 

Observations of the Court: 

It was observed that 1st letter issued by Respondent No.1 in respect of documents of heir-ship or documents proving title to subject matters properties was issued on 19.11.2020 and thereafter, from this 27.01.2020 till 19.11.2020 there was no such demand raised. 

 Hence, it was not the fault of Petitioners as they followed up. 

Noting that as per Respondent No. 1, there were lack of documents of title or heir-ship, the hence, the amount was withheld, it was ruled that the present case fell under Section 77(2) of the 2013 Act.  

Hence, the Respondent No.1 should have deposited the amount of compensation with the authority to which reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act lies, immediately after the first communication dated 27th January 2020 was made by the Petitioners. 

It was ruled that the subsequent communications about heir-ship or exchange of documents then became insignificant. 

Coming to Section 80, it was opined that where compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, then, the Collector, for the first year, would have to pay interest @9% p.a., and for any period subsequent thereto @15% p.a., until the payment is made. 

It was ruled that the Petitioners would be entitled to interest @9% p.a. in the first year from the date of taking possession of the subject properties and @15% p.a. from the start of the second year till its actual payment. 

The decision of the Court:

Based on aforementioned findings, the writ petition were accordingly allowed. 

Case Title: Hatim Fidaali Rajkotwala & Anr. V. Land Acquisition Officer, The Collector and District Magistrate, Mumbai City & Anr 

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2965 Of 2021 With Writ Petition No. 2966 Of 2021 

Coram: Hon’ble Justice B. P. Colabawalla, Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sathaye 

Advocates for Petitioners: Advs. Mr.Mohd. Nawaz Haindaday, Gazala P. Shaikh

Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. L.T. Satelkar, Mr.Mansih Upadhyay, Ms. Fatema Kachwalla 

Read More @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :