Sh. Mahender Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2006 Latest Caselaw 1010 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent to make payment of statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of his land in terms of ECHO is on. Award No. 3/1997-98 dated 10.12.1997. They also pray for awarding of penal interest on the awarded compensation for culpable and intentional delay on the part of the respondent in making the payment of compensation to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims to be a poor farmer whose land was acquired by the Delhi Administration, Government of NCT of Delhi, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the of the Act dated 6.4.1964. The acquisition proceedings were unduly delayed and the award was made after a lapse of more than 33 years, and the possession of the acquired lands, including the land of the petitioner measuring about 8 bighas 4 biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 145/1 (2-8) and 146 (4-16) in the revenue estate of Village Ali, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi was taken on 26.5.1998. The compensation in terms of the award dated 6.4.1964 was paid to the petitioner on 18.5.2005 i.e. after a lapse of more than 7 years from the date of taking over of the possession and after the petitioner had pursued his claim with the respondent possession of this land was taken on 26.5.1998. The interest in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act for the years 1998 to 2005 (May) is still due to the claimants. The petitioner had made requests to the respondent for release of the interest under Section 34 of the Act as back as in July'2005-August'2005. Despite these requests sent to the respondent, the copies of which have been placed on record along with the writ petition, the petitioner was not paid his dues and, in fact, the petitioner did not even receive any reply to these applications. Petitioner also claim to have filed petition under Section 18 of the Act, which has been referred to the Reference Court of competent jurisdiction and is stated to be pending. Reference in this petition has also been made to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Chand and Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 10943-10944/2004), wherein the Court had directed the respondents to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioners in those writ petitions within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and had also directed that the reference applications filed by the claimants be referred to the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Sriaya were the petitioners in that case whose land had been acquired vide same notification from the revenue estate of the same village. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that they were under the bonafide impression that the respondent in furtherance to the order of the Division Bench would pay the compensation with all statutory benefits and without any further delay. Despite such an order and even applications being sent to the respondent by the petitioner, the respondent had failed to clear the dues of compensation payable to the claimants, resulting in filing of the present writ petition.

3. Upon notice, the respondent filed an affidavit through Mr. A.K. Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, as well as produced the records in court. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit that the possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary i.e. 'Delhi Development Authority' (for short 'DDA') on 26.5.1998. It is even submitted that notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued to the claimants and the claimants in turn filed their claims @ Rs. 2000/- per bigha. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had full knowledge of announcement of the award, and had applied for payment of compensation after making of the award on 2.8.2004 which was processed and formalities were completed on 12.5.2005. Thereafter, a cheque was issued to the petitioner on 18.5.2005. The claim of the petitioner that he would be entitled to receive interest as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Act is not disputed. It is stated that a demand was raised on the beneficiary (DDA) on 12.5.2005 followed by a reminder dated 26.8.2005, however, no response had been received from the DDA nor the DDA has paid that amount. Though, DDA was not imp leaded as a party in the present writ petition, but in similar matters the ECHO is on. stand of the DDA was that interest under Section 34 was not payable to the claimants.

4. The records were produced before us. From the records it is no way apparent that the claimants were present at the time of pronouncement of the award. The file does not contain any notices issued to the petitioner under Sections 9, 10 and even 12(2) of the Act and in fact, the same shows that the first noting in the case of Mahender Singh was started on 7.7.2005 wherein it was stated that petition under Section 18 has been filed and the same be processed. The application for payment of the compensation which was filed before the authorities on 4.8.2004 was for the first time dealt with by the authorities at its lowest level on 16.10.2004/30.12.2004

5. From the above noticed facts pleaded and the circumstances, it is clear that admittedly the possession of the land was taken on 26.5.1998 while compensation was not paid to the claimants till 18.5.2005, which is a matter of concern not only for the court but even for the authorities upon whom the obligation lies to disburse the compensation to the claimants, timely and expeditiously.

6. The claimants were not paid compensation including the interest payable to them in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act along with the compensation on 18.5.2005, is again a matter of serious consideration. If there was a difference of opinion between the DDA and the Land Acquisition Collector, why was it not resolved by approaching the concerned Ministry for constitution of a committee to resolve inter departmental disputes between the State and State authorities, as per the directions of the Supreme Court. There is no explanation on record why no steps were taken to finalise the matters for a long period of 7 years i.e. from 1998 to 2005 to ensure complete payment of compensation to the claimants; why this heavy burden is unnecessarily being cast upon the public ex-chequer and who is responsible for causing such financial losses to the Government.

7. Every action of the government has to be done within the specified time and if no time is specified then within a reasonable time. Reasonableness in State action is the ethos of proper administration. There appears to be no justification for a delay of long period of 7 years despite the controversy between the departments in not paying the compensation to the claimants and permitting such a liability, particularly in view of Section 34 of the Act, to mount day-by-day, month-by-month and year by year. If we treat 2-3 months as a reasonable time for disbursing the compensation to the claimants, in that event the authorities must ponder and with some seriousness as to who is responsible for the huge financial loss to the government; as a result of whose negligence and careless attitude, the government is called upon to pay interest for nearly 6 years and 8 months @ 9% and/or 15% per annum on the amount of awarded compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Furthermore, for the period of 18.5.2005 till the date of filing of the writ petition and even subsequent thereto till the date of payment, why the issue between the public authorities was not resolved and payments under Section 34 of the Act were not made to the claimants Whether for all these years, the payments were delayed intentionally or for any bonafide reason (of course, none appears to be from the pleadings of the parties and from the records produced before us) as the consequences are far-reaching and very material even in terms of financial obligations of the State. This financial obligation, resulting from undue delay and callous attitude of the authorities, ultimately results in imposition of liability on a common income-tax payer and deprives him of benefits which could have accrued from other State Policies and Developmental projects, if the money was diverted and utilised in that direction rather than in creating unnecessary financial burden on the public ex-chequer.

8. In this regard, reference can also be made to a detailed judgment of this Court in the case of Mahender Kumar v. Land Acquisition Collector ECHO is on. W.P.(C) No. 13308-12/2005 decided on 11th May, 2006, where the court after discussing the law in relation to administrative and bureaucratic accountability, proper discharge of statutory and public duties and applicability of principles of reasonableness of State action held as under: Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court of the same date in the case of Sukhbir Singh Tyagi and Ors. v. Lieutenant Governor and Ors. WP(C) 22895-927/2005 where the court held as under:

4. Various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act impose a duty upon the authorities to act within a specified time. Consequences of violation of such duty normally would be spelled out in the statute itself, even if it is no so stated. Aggrieved party cannot be said to be without remedy. The duty imposed by the statute may also be actionable by the express terms of the statute or on the principle that an action lies for any indictable wrong. There is clear distinction between the duty and the power. However, a duty may be implied from a power. The Courts may not look for or require a party to establish negligence as a fact because breach of statutory duty itself is a proof of negligence. The authorities enjoy considerable discretion under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it requires adherence to higher standards of care and ensuring that the public at large or a class of persons, subjected to their discretion are not exposed to undue delay and financial losses as a result of inaction of the authorities. The powers vested in the public officers under the provisions of the Act includes both statutory and administrative powers taking within its ambit the corresponding duty obligations to effectively carry out the object of the Act. If the public officers or public bodies fail to perform any public duty with which they have been charged, an order of mandamus will lie to compel them to carry it out and in some circumstances even if the time to perform under the statute had not left. In accordance with this principle, writ of mandamus will issue to the Government Officials in their capacity as public officers exercising executive duties, which affect the rights of the private persons. Occasionally and now more often mandamus may also be sought to enforce the non- statutory duties. The statutory duty must be performed without any reasonable delay. Delay in action, particularly grant of relief to which a private person is entitled to, would vest the affected party with further consequences while making the officer responsible for his latches. Action taken by persons holding public offices is to be inconformity with the basic rule of law and standard policies and must be free of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. even held a minister responsible personally for illegal allotments as exercise of power tantamount to misuse of power.

5. Breach of duty is an actionable wrong. Rights of the authorities and their duties are co-related. Violation of one's right is the breach of other's duty. In some cases, the department may be called upon to examine the conduct of its various officers as the department would be responsible for their action/inaction. Breach of duty may not essentially result from wrong doing, which may arise from negligence, failing to act timely or even by breach of duty under the statute, the duty may be specifically envisaged in the language of the provision or it may arise by necessary interpretation applying the concept of reasonable conduct. The expansion of rights would lead to expansion of bonds of liability. They are co-related and inter-dependent. Expansion of one would result in widening result of other. Of course, they will have to be examined with reference to the needs and situations, which are contemplated under the law. Negligence or inaction have larger consequences and implies an obligation on the authorities vested with the powers to act with greater and higher standards of care. If there is a right under the law, there must be a remedy for its violation as law commands nothing vainly- Lex nil frustra jubet. ECHO is on.

6. Another facet of statutory duty is to impose negative obligations on the State not to encroach upon the rights of the individual or to frustrate what is granted under law to the citizen. Declaration of rights would be meaningless unless there is effective machinery for enforcement of the rights. Remedy is the essence of a right. A right really become effective and meaningful when its enforceability is accepted by the procedure of law. The legality or illegality of a State action, particularly when they are acting in furtherance to the statutory powers vested in them, would be subject to judicial review, not in its narrowest sense. Wherever a cause is relatable to breach of statutory or implied duty of a public officer, the rule of law would essentially provide for a remedy even if it is not so specifically spelled out in the provisions of the Act. Arbitrariness and unreasonableness being facets of Article 14 are available as grounds not only for questioning an administrative action but in certain cases may even invalidate subordinate legislation. Timely action is the essence of government functioning and unreasonable delay questions the very correctness of such orders. Wherever the records offer no explanation for prolonged unreasonable delay, the equity will tilt more in favor of the petitioners than uphold the action of the authorities to be correct, being done in the normal course of its business. Books Referred to :

2002(3) Supreme Court Cases 7 2005 (2) Supreme Court Cases 317 1996 (VI) Supreme Court Cases 1390 The Law of torts' - 9th Edition by Ramaswamy Iyer. Law of torts' - 12th Edition By Salmond and Heuston Halsbury's Laws of England - 4th Edition By Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone.

7. Concept of public accountability has been applied to the decision making process in the government by the courts for a considerable time. This concept takes in its ambit imposition of costs and its recovery from the officer concerned for their negligence or acts of prolonged, unexplained delays running into years. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Food Corporation of India 2004 (13) Supreme Court Cases 53, the Court directed as under:

We are shocked as to the manner in which the State Government is filing petitions in this Court resulting not only in wasting the time of this Court and all others concerned but in total waste of public money. The impugned orders have been challenged after more than eight years with almost no explanation, as is evident from the paragraph reproduced above.

In this view, while dismissing the applications seeking condensation of delay, we direct that enquiry be made forthwith by the State Government as to the person responsible for this state of affairs, recover from such person the costs involved in filing these petitions and submit the report to this Court within a period of four weeks.

8. Administrative or executive actions are subject matter of judicial review. Noticing the significance of scope of judicial review in this regard and bureaucracy accountability, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh held as under:

In our democracy governed by the rule of law, the judiciary has expressly been entrusted with the power of judicial review as sentinal in qui vive. Basically judicial review of administrative actions as also of legislation is exercised against the actions of the State. Since the State or public authorities act in ECHO is on. exercise of their executive or legislative power, they are amenable to the judicial review....

...The normal principle that the permanent bureaucracy is accountable to the political executive is subject to judicial review. The doctrine of full faith and credit applied to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or performed, is apposite in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is now settled legal position that the bureaucracy is also accountable for the acts done in accordance with the rules when judicial review is called to be exercised by the Courts. The hierarchical responsibility for the decision is their in-built discipline. But the Head of the Department/designated officer is ultimately responsible and accountable to the Court for the result of the action done or decision taken. Despite this, if there is any special circumstance absolving him of the accountability or if someone else is responsible for the action, he needs to bring them to the notice of the Court so that appropriate procedure is adopted and action taken. The controlling officer holds each of them responsible at the pain of disciplinary action. The object thereby is to ensure compliance of the rule of law....

...A member of the permanent executive, is enjoined to comply with the orders of the Court passed in exercise of the judicial review. When a Court issues certain directions to the executive authorities it is expected that the authorities would discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under the rules and as per the directions. If they do not discharge the duty, necessarily, they are required to give explanation to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should seek further time for compliance. When, neither of the steps have been taken by the officer in that regard the Court can impose the costs personally against him for non-compliance of the order....

...It is known fact that in transaction of the Government business, none would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels. It is not uncommon that delay would be deliberately caused in filing appeal or revision by Government to confer advantage to the opposite litigant; more so when stakes involved are high or persons are well connected/influential or due to obvious considerations. The Courts, therefore, do not adopt strict standard of proof of every day's delay. The imposition of costs on officers for filing appeals causes public injustice and gives the manipulators an opportunity to compound the camouflage. Secondly, the imposition of costs personally against the officers would desist to pursue genuine cases of public benefit or importance or of far-reaching effect on public administration or exchequer deflecting course of justice.

9. The principle of care, maintenance of higher caution, expeditious decision-making process in exercise of statutory powers, public accountability and transparency are also applicable to the various proceedings under the law of acquisition. Various provisions of the Act could be referred to demonstrate that the exercise of powers eminating from statutory provisions is coupled with public obligation, to protect the rights of the land owners.

10. The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to conduct a survey prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 empowers the Officer to enter upon any property for the purposes of survey and other acts stated in that provision. The Legislature has even taken precautions to make a statutory provision for payment of compensation for any damage which may be done during completion of ECHO is on. such duty imposed upon the Officer, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In regard to deficiency of the amount so offered or tendered, the dispute could be referred to the Collector or the Chief Revenue Officer. After having issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the next effective step to be taken by the authorities is to issue notices to the interested persons under Section 9 of the Act. It is intended to convey to the public, the intention of the Government to take possession and calling upon them to make claims in regard to the lands acquired. The Collector would make an enquiry and then pronounce his award as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector is to take approval of the government before the award could be made enforceable. Section 11(a) was introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 to require the authorities to make an award within 2 years from the date of publication of declaration. The consequences of non-compliance were to the extent that entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. The only explanation in providing the period of 2 years was the exclusion of the period during which orders of stay passed by the court were in operation. After pronouncing of the award under Section 11 of the Act, unless the case was covered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the Collector was to take possession of the lands under Section 16, and such lands would vest in the government, free from all encumbrances. After the award is made the Collector is required to give immediate notice of his award to the persons interested who were not personally present before him so that the compensation could be awarded to the rightful claimants. Then the award of the Collector in regard to apportionment, area value of the land and the interested persons attains finality in that field. The claimants have a right to claim compensation without prejudice to their rights and contentions by making reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. From the stage of making of a reference, the matters are transferred from the administrative and executive authorities functioning under the provisions of the Act, for adjudication process to the courts.

11. The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to caution the authorities (beneficiaries for whose benefit the lands are acquired) that they should make the funds available for their disbursement to the rightful claimants. This now is the clear directive stated in Section 50 of the Act.

12. Under the provisions of the Act, a duty is cast upon the authorities to make payment of compensation determined to the rightful claimants expeditiously. The provisions of Section 9 indicate a preparatory step by the State authorities invoking the plea that the Government intends to acquire the lands as well as calling upon the claimants to claim compensation. The Collector would determine the fair market value of the acquired land and direct its payment/apportionment amongst the rightful claimants i.e. interested persons. The right of the persons to claim money is, thus, instantly available to them upon making of the award except in cases where the compensation of the lands of the owners is taken under Section 17(3) of the Act wherein they become entitled to 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession of the land. The provisions of the Act even provide a safeguard to the citizen and obligation to the State that where estimated compensation cannot be paid because of contingencies stated in Section 31(2), they are required to deposit the same in terms of the Section 31. Under Section 19 while the Collector is making the reference he is required to provide information to the Court in writing, including the amounts which have been paid or deposited and all other amount for damages or compensation, which were tendered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 23(1-A) requires authorities to pay, in addition to the market value as called in terms of Section 23, an amount @12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the ECHO is on. date of taking possession of the land. In addition to this, 30% of the market value of the land is payable on account of compulsory nature of acquisition. Section 34 further postulates that the amount of compensation so determined and if not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereupon @9% per annum from the date of taking of possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. Further, for the period in excess of one year from the date of taking over possession, interest is payable @15% per annum for the compensation amount determined or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.

13. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act has an inbuilt check and balances and the legislative intent of providing just and fair market value to the owners of the lands and expeditiously is more than evident under various provisions of the Act. A dual purpose is sought to be achieved by providing even the periods within which the authorities are expected to discharge their duties and ensure disbursement of compensation to the claimants. In default thereof, certain further liabilities accrue against the department. Surely, the Act does not contemplate and rightly so that a claimant entitled to receive compensation is expected or it is even desirable for him to run in various departments of the Govt. or the authorities to receive his compensation, which may not be paid to him for years together. Certain benefits are available to the claimants for delay in acquisition proceedings commencing with under Section 4 and making of the award under Section 11, as the authorities are required to pay interest @12% per annum to the claimants for this period. The claimants are also protected to some extent against compulsive acquisition as well as from the date the possession is taken till entire payment of the awarded compensation is made to the claimants. But the Statute has a lacunae inasmuch as it gives no benefit much less an additional benefit to the claimants, whose lands are required for the entire period commencing from the date of making of the award till taking over of possession by the Department. No liability of any kind comes on the department despite any length of this period i.e. where the judicial pronouncements would abridge the gap and require the authorities to ponder over this aspect of the matter and not leave the claimants unbenefited or remedy less for this period. There are number of cases before the Court where the awards are made and for years compensation is not paid. In some of them, may be the department has some reasonable excuses but in most of them at least the records produced before the Court in those cases do not reflect so. Still in another set of cases, the land is acquired, award is made and possession thereof is not taken for years together and the period varies from 7 years to 30 years. Still in another set of cases the possession is taken and for years compensation is not paid and if it is paid, it is not paid in its entirety. There are large number of writs, which are coming up before the Court every day falling in either of these categories. This aspect has been discussed by the Court in some detail in another case being WP (C) No. 13308-12/2005, which is being disposed of by the judgment of the same date.

14. Inaction and action taken after inordinate delay by various functionaries working under the scheme of the Act results in seriously jeopardizing interest of claimants as well as the public money. In some cases, the claimants are not paid their dues entitling them for higher rate of interest and interest for unnecessarily prolonged period. This may be their gain but it certainly is to the disadvantage of the public exchequer and an avoidable financial loss. On the other hand, the claimants would suffer accrual of any benefits, if their properties are acquired, award is made and the possession is not taken for years together. This further leads to dual disfunctional results. The very purpose for which the land is acquired may stand frustrated because of long intervening period as a result of unauthorised construction or colonies ECHO is on. coming up on the acquired land, and secondly it occasions in generating litigation which again is avoidable. Thus, timely action for completing acquisition proceedings and expeditious determination and disbursement of compensation to the claimants should be the Hallmark of all the functionaries doing public duties under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act.

15. In the case of ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. , the Supreme Court held as under :

It is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably to a contract which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Unless the action challenged in the writ petition pertains to the discharge of a public function or public duty by an authority, the courts will not entertain a writ petition which does not involve the performance of the said public function or public duty.

16. State actions causing loss are actionable under public law and this is as a result of innovation to a new tool with the court, which are the protectors of civil liberty of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State Action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action even in the cases of appointment, which essentially must not lack bonafide was enforced by the Supreme Court in the case of Centre for public interest litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. .

17. Adverting to the facts of the present case in the back drop of principle of public or statutory duty and accountability of public officers, we are constrained to say that authorities have not been able to place any justification on record for non payment of the awarded compensation to the petitioners. Non-disclosure of any sufficient reason obviously would hold them responsible for the consequences flowing from the default in discharge of their public and statutory obligations. The Notification under Section 4 was issued on 27th January, 2003 while declaration under Section 6 was issued on 23rd January, 2004 i.e. after a lapse of nearly one year. The award was made by the Collector on 22nd August, 2005 being Award No. 15/2005-06/DC(N-W) after a lapse of nearly 1 year and 8 months. The possession of the land was taken on or before 14th September, 2005 but the compensation of the petitioners have not been paid even till filing of the present writ petition. The petitioners had filed their objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14th September, 2005 itself. In other words, the petitioners had filed application for payment of their compensation and their application for further enhancement in accordance with Section 18 of the Act but despite filing of such applications, copies of which have been filed on record, they have not been paid compensation till date. The respondents have not even deposited the said compensation before the Reference Court. There is no justification whatsoever on record as to why the compensation has not been paid for the last more than 8 months. Two important aspects of the matter, which create avoidable liabilities on the public exchequer are, who would be responsible for not acting within a reasonable time and furthermore, who would pay the interest in terms of Section 34 and even under Section 23(1-A). Should this liability be fastened upon the common income-tax payer, who contributes towards the public exchequer or should it be ECHO is on. the liability of the officers/officials, who are in charge of the acquisition proceedings and do not deal with the files for months together. Timely disbursement of compensation is the obligation of the authorities and no reason whatsoever either by filing a counter affidavit or by production of record has been shown as to why even after taking possession in September, 2005, the compensation has not been disbursed for 8 months. It is a matter, which should invite attention of all concerned.

9. In the present case, the Union of India/respondent does not even dispute the liability and in fact, has taken up the plea that the DDA did not send the amounts despite reminders, for its in-turn disbursement to the claimants by the Collector. This cannot be any excuse in law. The principal liability to pay the amount is that of the Collector as he is the acquiring authority. It is an incidental liability which goes upon the beneficiary. All these matters in fact should have been resolved at the very threshold rather than prolonging the issue for nearly 10 years creating unnecessary liability on the public ex-chequer on the one hand and putting the claimant/petitioner to inconvenience, harassment and hardship on the other. The provisions of Section 34 of the Act in no uncertain terms imposes a liability upon the respondent to pay the interest upon the awarded amount of compensation. More than often, a half-hearted argument is put forward on behalf of the respondents that the claimants/petitioners did not come forward to collect their compensation, and that is why there are undue delays in disbursement of the compensation to the rightful claimants. Even this half-hearted argument has no merit. The law imposes an obligation upon the authorities to require the owners of the acquired lands to submit their claims as contemplated under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, after the award is made and where the claimants are not present, to serve a notice on them under Section 12(2) of the Act and thereafter as and when the reference under Section 18 is received, to ensure that the compensation, if not already paid to the claimants, is paid and if for any reason payments are not made to the rightful claimants, the same should be deposited with the court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, there is an obligation upon the State to tender/pay to the claimants and/or deposit the amount of compensation with the court of competent jurisdiction when the payment falls due in terms of the provisions of this Act. That is the precise reason why Legislature in its wisdom has used the expression such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession, the liability to pay interest under Section 34 arises. Under Section 34 of the Act, when an award under Section 11 of the Act is made, the Collector is obliged to tender the payment of the compensation awarded by him to the interested persons unless otherwise specified. This principle of law has long been settled but still the State authorities prefer to find excuses not to comply with their legal obligations. The attempt appears to be to justify why the authorities have not acted and to show that the amounts should not be paid to the claimants, rather than to ensure deposit of the amounts in the courts of competent jurisdiction to avoid any future liability of the State towards the claimants. The authorities appear to have ignored the very object of the Act. The obligation upon the State to tender payment and in case of exceptions provided in the provisions of the Act, deposit the same in the court, hardly requires any further elucidations. The dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Hissar Improvement Trust v. Rukmani Devi 1990 (supp) SCC 806 is binding on all and in fact requires to be strictly adhered to. The Court in that case held as under:

3. Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in Court. This section requires that the Collector should tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the person interested. If for reasons mentioned in that section the compensation has not ECHO is on. been paid the Collector should deposit the amount of compensation in the court to which reference can be made under Section 18 of the Act. Section 34 provides for payment of interest in the event of compensation which has to be paid or deposited in the court as provided under Section 31, being not to so paid or deposited before taking possession of the land.

10. Thus, there is a complete and absolute obligation upon the Collector to tender/pay the amount of compensation. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 further makes it mandatory for the Collector that wherever the claimant do not consent to receive the compensation, or where there is a dispute, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the court in which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. In fact, the entire scheme of the Act is that when the State authority is acquiring the land by process of compulsive acquisition, it is obligatory and even mandatory for the authorities to ensure tendering of the payment and/or deposit of the compensation in favor of the original claimants without any delay. The authorities are expected to fulfilll the legislative intent rather than frustrate the same by even ignoring the object of the Act i.e. 'public interest and public goal' .

11. In the present case, the authorities have admittedly made no attempt whatsoever in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is no record showing issuance of notices under Sections 9 and 10. Notices under Section 12(2) were admittedly not issued despite the possession having been taken on 26.5.1998; the compensation was not paid for 7 years and the liability under Section 34 has not been discharged till date. This attitude of the authorities deserve to be deprecated and cannot be accepted as a good administration.

12. Keeping in view the might of the State and the powers vested in the State under the provisions of the Act, it should hardly be even urged on behalf of the State that compensation could not be disbursed to the claimants because they could not give consent. The claimant, of course, was negligent about receiving the compensation after possession of the land was taken from him and did not file any writ petitions but there appears to be no justification whatsoever, on the part of the authorities for not disbursing the complete compensation including benefits of Section 34 to the claimants despite the pleas taken and order passed by the High Court in the case of Hari Chand (supra). On 27.7.2005, a specific request was made on behalf of the petitioner for payment of remaining compensation, if any, and interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act.

13. Thus, we find no justification, whatsoever in the case put forward by the respondent and we allow this writ petition directing the respondents to pay all the interest payable to the claimants in terms of Section 34 of the Act, within two weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which the respondent is at liberty to recover from the erring officer/officials, after fixing the responsibility in accordance with law.

14. Before parting with this file, we also direct the authorities concerned to cogitate with some seriousness over the questions raised in this writ petition and take appropriate steps and actions as may be called for in accordance with law.

15. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.