Shri Kanwar Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 770 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Act' ) on 25.10.1979 in respect of the land situated in Village Bohargarh, Delhi. The appellants land was also notified under the said notification. A declaration was also issued under Section 6 of the Act read with Section 17(4) of the Act on the same date. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) determined the market value of land at Rs. 4,300/- per bigha in terms of the Award No. 58/80-81 dated 19.08.1980.

2. The appellants aggrieved by the same sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. The appellants were still not satisfied and preferred an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, which has resulted in the impugned order whereby the compensation has been determined at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha.

3. At the stage when the appeal was filed, the appellants sought enhancement of compensation to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha. However, almost 14 years after filing of the appeal, the appellants filed CM No. 1249/2000 seeking to amend the claim to Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. Not only this, during pendency of the application, a further application was filed being CM No. 130/2002 seeking further enhancement to Rs. 80,000/- per bigha.

4. The applications and the appeal were both taken up for consideration on 09.07.2004 when the applications for amendment of the claim were rejected on the ground that the appellants had restricted their original claim before the LAC only to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha and, thus, the appellants would not be entitled to seek enhancement of the claim by the amendment application in view of the award being prior to the cut off date of 26.07.1984 when the amendments were made to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act.

5. In the appeal, it was held that the land value would be Rs. 38,300/- per bigha in view of the decision dated 07.02.2003 in RFA No. 464/1988 titled 'Union of India v. Amar Singh' since the factual matrix in respect of the date of the notification and location were identical. However, the claim was granted only to the extent of Rs. 14,000/- per bigha in view of the rejection of the amendment applications.

6. The appellants thereafter filed the review application on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of record in as much as the appellants had not restricted the claim before the LAC to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha, but had actually claimed Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. The plea, thus, advanced was that the appellants would not be entitled to more than Rs. 40,000/- per bigha and since the land value determined was Rs. 38,300/- per bigha, the appellant would be entitled to the said claim. This review application was allowed after condoning the delay in filing the same on 15.04.2005 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. and Madan B. Lokur, J.). The amendment applications filed by the appellants being CM Nos. 1249/2000 and 130/2002 were allowed subject to the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants should not be held entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of the application. The order passed on appeal was also recalled as a consequence thereof. It is in view thereof that the appeal has now been placed before the present Bench dealing with the land acquisition matters.

7. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the appellants would be entitled to Rs. 38,300/- per bigha, which is also the plea of learned counsel for the appellants.

8. The only question to be determined is whether the appellants should be held entitled to interest for the period for which the appellants did not claim the enhanced amount or move any application for enhancement of the claim.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks to rely upon the Order passed on CM No. 1604/2001 in RFA No. 191/1985 in respect of real brother of the appellants where such an application for amendment of the claim was allowed subject to making up of deficiency of court fee with no such restriction being placed. Learned counsel submits that this application was filed after the application filed by the appellants in the year 2000.

10. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

11. It has been the consistent practice of this Court in a number of matters that wherever such applications have been filed belatedly, the same are allowed only subject to the restriction of non-grant of interest for the period of delay from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of filing of the application. This view is based on the fact that in respect of matters of interest, the same is the discretion of the Court and this discretion has been so exercised since the Government cannot be burdened with the interest costs in respect of a claimant who has chosen not to claim the amount before the competent court. The matter of grant of interest is in the discretion of the Court and the Supreme Court in Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnor, AIR 1967 SC 465 has held by reference to the language of Section 28 of the Act that the words "may direct" means that it is discretionary on the part of the Court to grant or to refuse to grant interest.

12. In the present case, in spite of such delays and long lapse of time, a liberal view has been taken to allow such amendment to the claimants primarily on the ground that there is determination of the land value in other proceedings. In most of the matters, the claimants really wake up only when such determination takes place in other matters and it is on that basis that the amendment is sought. The claimants not having claimed the amount originally cannot, thus, claim to recover interest from the Government for this period of delay.

13. The mere fact that in RFA No. 191/1985 relating to brother of the appellants in respect of the land owned by him at the same village, no such restriction has been placed cannot be a ground itself to grant interest to the appellants, especially when as per the statement of learned counsel for the appellants, they are not co-owners of the land. A perusal of the Order dated 07.02.2003 in RFA No. 191/1985 shows that there is no specific reasons recorded for grant of such interest for the belated period.

14. We have considered it appropriate to put down the reasons why we are seeking to decline the grant of such interest and it is the consistent practice of this Court in respect of the numerous cases decided in such a situation.

15. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 38,300/- per bigha along with all statutory benefits except interest for the period from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of the application on the differential amount of Rs. 26,000/- for which the application for amendment was made. It is not in dispute that the appellants will not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23 of the Act as granted by the Reference Court and to that extent grant of the said claim is not in accordance with law.

16. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.