Panchram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 359 Chatt

                                      -1-


                                                                        NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                       Writ Petition (C) No. 432 of 2022

  1. Panchram S/o Bhakhalu, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Village
     Chandrapur, Tehsil- Dabhara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
  2. Premlal Urav ( Wrongly Mentioned As Pantu In The Chart) S/o
     Bhakhlu, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village- Gopalpur, Tehsil-
     Dabhara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

  3. Sahettar S/o Shri Mangal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
     Barhaguda, Tehsil-Dabhara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioners
                                    Versus
  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water
     Resource Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
     Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  2. Collector Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

  3. Sub-Divisional Officer ( Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer
     Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

  4. Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resource Department Raipur, District-
     Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  5. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Bilaspur, District-
     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

  6. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Raigarh, District-
     Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri Hariom Rai, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21.01.2022

1. The claim of petitioners in the present writ petition is to the

erroneous calculation of interest made by the respondents while

granting compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 (in short " the Right to Fair Compensation Act").

2. The case of the petitioners is that the land belonging to the

petitioners was acquired in the year 2018 and the award was also

passed in the year 2018. However, according to the petitioners, the

possession of land was already taken by the respondents way back

in the year 2011.

3. The contention of the counsel for petitioners is that in terms of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gayabai

Digambar Puri (Died) through LR's Vs. The Executive Engineer

& Ors. in Civil Appeal (Diary No.17566 of 2020), decided on

03.01.2022, the petitioners are entitled for interest on the

compensation from the date the possession has been taken by the

respondents and not from the date of award. For ready reference

paragraph-2 of the said case is reproduced hereinunder:

"2. The limited issue involved in this appeal is about the liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of award. The Court while issuing notice on 13.01.2021 noted thus:

"Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the High Court has glossed over the crucial fact that in the present case, urgency clause was invoked. In that event, in light of the exposition of this Court in R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. vs. D.D.A. & Ors., reported in (2004) 4

SCC 79, the interest ought to be payable from the date of taking possession.

Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition, returnable in four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Liberty is granted to serve standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra."

4. Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act envisages

payment of interest and also provides a mechanism as to how the

rate of interest at which the compensation has to be paid. In spite of

there being specific statutory provisions dealing with the issue, the

petitioners have not been granted the benefit of interest from the

date of possession but they have erroneously been granted from the

date of award. The compensation and the interest also have been

paid to the petitioners only after they had approached the High Court

on the earlier occasion by filing separate writ petitions i.e. WPC Nos.

4483/19, 265/20 & 276/20 which were disposed of vide order dated

09.12.19, 21.01.20 & 21.01.20 respectively permitting the petitioners

to approach the competent authority under the Act for the same. Yet

the petitioners have been deprived of the interest from the date of

possession till the date of award.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the only issue which needs to be considered

at this juncture is so far as the payment of interest payable to the

petitioners from the date of possession till the date of award. As the

subsequent interest part has already been taken care of as directed

by this Court in the earlier round of litigation upon representation

being made. The respondents now have to decide only the

entitlement of the petitioners for interest from the date of possession

of land onwards within a period of 90 days, however, though

subsequently payment of interest has been made, the same has

been made only from the date of award.

6. Be that as it may, let the petitioners again approach the respondent

No.3 by way of a suitable representation within a period of 30 days

seeking for interest from the date the actual possession was taken

from the petitioners, till date the award was passed. Upon such

representation being made, the respondent No.3 shall take an

appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law after due

verification of facts as regards possession. The respondents shall

also decide taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court

referred to in the preceding paragraph at the earliest preferably

within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of representation

of the petitioners.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai