Bombay High Court
Sanjay Dattarao Shinde And 9 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 4 May, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 6619/13 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 6619/2013
1. Sanjay Dattarao Shinde,
Aged: 40 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
2. Ashok Madhao Murmure,
Aged: 45 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
3. Parmeshwar Anandrao Lagdutkar,
Aged: 32 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
4. Bali Haibati Waghe,
Aged: 65 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
5. Parasram Khandu Sable,
Aged: 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
6. Ganesh Laxman Madke,
Aged: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
7. Rameshwar Narayan Madke,
Aged: 70 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
8. Vitthal Bagaji Shinde,
Aged: 60 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
9. Shamrao Hanwantrao Kadam,
Aged: 60 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
10. Smt.Kalawatibai Parasharam Suroshe,
Aged: 65 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist.
All R/o Wadad, Tq. Mahagaon, District: Yavatmal . PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. High Court Legal Aid Services
Sub Committee, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
Through its Secretary. (DELETED)
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Yavatmal.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Lower Pus Project, Yavatmal.
4. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through its Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division, Nagpur.
5. Executive Engineer (V.I.D.C.)
Minor Irrigation Division,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri K.S. Narwade, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for the respondent no.5.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:50:08 :::
WP 6619/13 2 Judgment
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4 TH MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction against
the respondent no.5-V.I.D.C. to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum
on the delayed payment of compensation in terms of the order of
compromise before the Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities
Act.
2. The land of the petitioners was acquired by the State
Government for Wadad Irrigation Tank. The land acquisition officer had
granted meager compensation and, hence, the petitioners had sought the
enhancement of compensation by filing applications before the reference
Court. The land acquisition case were registered and the reference Court
enhanced the compensation and granted it at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/-
per Hectare. The V.I.D.C. filed separate first appeals against the
judgments of the reference Court before this Court. During the pendency
of the appeals, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for considering
whether the dispute in regard to the quantum of compensation could be
settled. The parties agreed before the Lok Adalat that in stead of the
compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare, the compensation of
Rs.1,12,000/- per Hectare could be paid to the petitioners. It was also
further agreed that the compensation was liable to be paid on or before
WP 6619/13 3 Judgment
06.08.2012. The first appeals were disposed of in terms of the said
compromise. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the agreement
and the orders passed in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, the
V.I.D.C. did not pay the compensation to the petitioners on or before
06.08.2012. According to the petitioners, the compensation was not paid
to the petitioners till the petition was filed on 04.12.2013.
3. Shri Narwade, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the V.I.D.C. was obliged to pay the compensation to the
petitioners on or before 06.08.2012. It is stated that the compromise
effected before the Lok Adalat was sacrosanct and it was necessary for the
V.I.D.C. to have paid the compensation to the petitioners on or before
06.08.2012. It is stated that since the compensation was not paid for
long, the V.I.D.C. may be directed to pay interest to the petitioners at the
rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of compensation.
4. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the V.I.D.C., has opposed
the prayer made in the writ petition. It is stated that no specific
direction that the compensation should be actually handed over to the
petitioners was issued. It is stated that the V.I.D.C. had deposited the
amount of Rs.7,92,864/- on 27.12.2012 and it was necessary for the
petitioners to have withdrawn the same from the office of the special
land acquisition officer. It is submitted that there was a shortfall in
WP 6619/13 4 Judgment
paying the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,44,393/- and the said
amount was deposited by the V.I.D.C. before the special land acquisition
officer on 11.03.2013. It is stated that the delay is not deliberate and is
due to administrative exigencies. It is stated that in the circumstances of
the case, the prayer made by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it
would be necessary for the V.I.D.C. to pay interest to the petitioners on
the delayed payment of compensation. Even assuming that the V.I.D.C.
was not directed to individually pay the compensation to the petitioners
on or before 06.08.2012, the V.I.D.C. should have at least deposited the
compensation payable to the petitioners before the land acquisition
officer on or before 06.08.2012. The V.I.D.C., however, deposited a
substantial amount that was payable to the petitioners towards the
compensation on 27.12.2012 and deposited the balance amount of
Rs.1,44,393/- before the special land acquisition officer on 11.03.2013.
In the circumstances of the case, since there is a delay on the part of the
V.I.D.C., it would be liable to pay interest on the delayed payment. When
an undertaking is given to a Court or when a compromise is effected
before the Lok Adalat that the amount would be paid within a stipulated
date, a party cannot canvas that interest on delayed payment cannot be
ordered as it was not able to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the
compromise due to administrative exigencies. The compromise was
WP 6619/13 5 Judgment
effected on 05.05.2012 and the amount was liable to be paid on or before
06.08.2012. There was considerable time between the two dates. The
V.I.D.C. ought to have ensured that the amount of compensation was at
least deposited before the special land acquisition officer on or before
06.08.2012. In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice, we find that the prayer made by the petitioners for a direction
against the V.I.D.C. to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum appears
to be just and reasonable.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondent-V.I.D.C. is directed to pay interest at the rate of
15% per annum on the amount of Rs.7,92,864/- with effect from
06.08.2012 till it was deposited before the special land acquisition
officer on 27.12.2012 and interest at the rate of 15% per annum on
the amount of Rs.1,44,393/- with effect from 06.08.2012 till
11.03.2013 when it was actually deposited before the special land
acquisition officer.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states
that the amount should be paid to the petitioners by account payee
cheques. The learned counsel for the respondent-V.I.D.C. states that the
account payee cheques would be prepared and the petitioners would be
informed that they should collect the same.
WP 6619/13 6 Judgment
8. In view of the aforesaid statements, we direct the respondent-
V.I.D.C. to prepare the account payee cheques for each of the petitioners
as per the directions in this judgment within one month so that the
V.I.D.C. need not intimate the petitioners that their cheques are ready and
that they should collect them. After the expiry of one month, the
petitioners may collect the cheques from the respondent no.5.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
