Rati Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2007 Latest Caselaw 1491 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The appellant was the bhumidar of agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Rawta, New Delhi which was acquired for increasing the capacity of Najafgarh drain. The notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' for short) was issued on 13.01.1981 and the land acquisition collector determined the compensation payable at the rate of Rs 2,000 per bigha vide award no 24/1983.84 dated 23.07.1983. The appellant being aggrieved by the quantum of the award preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act. On such reference being made, the learned Additional District Judge in terms of the judgment dated 12.08.1987 held the appellant entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 3,500/- per bigha apart from solarium at the rate of 30 per cent, additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value from the date of notification to the the announcement of the award or date of taking possession whichever is earlier, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum till payment on the excess amount.

2. The appellant was still aggrieved and preferred the present appeal seeking compensation at Rs 8,000/- per bigha. It is stated in the appeal that though the land is of the value of Rs 12,000/- per bigha, the appellant was unable to pay the court fees and thus restricted his claim.

3. The appeal came to be finally decided only by the judgment dated 30.08.2001. The said order notices that in RFA No. 418/1988 Pirthi & Ors v. Union of India decided on 02.08.2001, the court had determined the fair market value for similar land acquired through the notification dated 13.01.1981 at Rs 10,500/-. The appeal was thus allowed with proportionate costs directing that the appellant would be entitled to compensation at Rs 8,000 per bigha since that was the claim made in the appeal. The appellant was further held entitled to solarium and interest on the enhanced amount as per the award of the Reference Court. The decree sheet was prepared accordingly.

4. The present application has been filed only on 26.04.2006 under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the said Code' for short) for correction/modification of the judgment dated 30.08.2001. In this application for the first time it has been disclosed that the appellant actually passed away on 27.05.1996 and was survived by his legal heirs as set out in para 4 of the application. It is claimed that the applicants were not aware of the pendency of the case and thus could not file the application for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased/applicant within time. The applicants claim knowledge from one Sh. Ram Kishan whose land was acquired by the same award. The applicants have stated that they were aware of the agricultural land held by their father and had even got the same mutated in the revenue records.

5. The respondent has opposed the application objecting to the provisions under which the application was made as it is claimed that the present case is one where substitution of legal representatives is being sought. Since no steps were taken in this behalf, the appeal stood abated. The applicants/legal representatives even failed to file any application seeking to set aside the abatement. Lack of prior knowledge of the applicants is also disputed since the applicants had taken steps for mutation of the land in their favor in the year 1996 and had even got certified copy of the khatoni for the year 1988-89 on 28.07.2001 where the details of the acquired land and award number are clearly mentioned. The death certificate is stated to have been obtained only in December, 2004, the application prepared in the year 2005 and filed in the year 2006 and thus there is stated to be gross negligence on the part of the applicants. In the rejoinder, the applicants explained that in the Khatoni obtained by them there is no mention of the pendency of the appeal but only of the acquisition of the land. The death certificate is stated to have been obtained for their record and not for the purposes of filing the application.

6. Learned Counsel for applicants really could not dispute the fact that there had been delay in filing the application on behalf of the applicants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the technicalities should not come in the way as the procedure is only to facilitate the ends of justice. It was thus contended that the application could be treated as an application for impleadment of legal representatives and for setting aside the abatement. Learned Counsel further stated that since the delay after the judgment was passed was on account of applicants, insofar as payment of interest was concerned, the applicants were willing to forgo the interest from the date of the judgment till the date of the application.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand fairly submitted that in view of the orders passed in a number of cases it really could not be disputed that the applicants could be brought on record but they should not be held entitled to any interest from the date of the death of the deceased appellant. In this behalf learned Counsel has referred to the orders passed in CM No. 9341/2006 in RFA No. 623/1988 titled Jagmohan and Others v. UOI and Ors; decided on 25.07.2006 where the delay was condoned and the legal representatives were brought on record but the appellants were held not entitled to interest on any enhancement for the period of delay. The said judgment refers to other similar orders passed by this Court. The principle enunciated is that in respect of matters of interest, the same is within the discretion of the Court and this discretion has to be exercised judiciously since the Government cannot be burdened with interest costs in respect of the claimant who has chosen not to claim the amount before the competent court. A reference was made to similar orders passed in other matters where the interest has been so denied.

8. In view of the aforesaid the only question to be considered is whether the applicants are entitled to any interest from the date of the death of deceased/appellant till date of the application? Insofar as the period from date of judgment till date of application is concerned i.e. 2001-2006, learned Counsel for the applicants has himself given up the claim on account of the delay. Thus the only aspect to be examined is whether on the expiry of period of ninety days from the date of death of the appellant (27.05.1996) which would be 26.08.1996 till the date of the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2001, the applicants should be held entitled to any interest.

9. It is no doubt true that the various orders passed by this Court have denied interest to a party who has approached the court belatedly for impleadment of the legal representatives. However, there is no general principle of law laid down except that the government should not be burdened with interest for the period of delay. The relevant provision of the said Act in this behalf is as under:

28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation - If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did not award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court:

Provided that the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into court before the date of such expiry.

10. The concept of payment of interest and enhanced interest under the said Act has been examined by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Das; where it has been held that insofar as the payment of interest is concerned, only provisions under Section 28 and 31 of the said Act are relevant. It was held that the Court has no power to award interest in a manner other than the one in which the statute prescribes payment and equitable consideration has no role to play in determination of the compensation and the manner of awarding interest as enjoined under the Act. It was thus held that the Act has to be administered in the manner laid in the Act and in no other way. As a concomitance, the equity jurisdiction of the Court is taken out and the Act enjoins the Court to grant interest as per the statutory rates specified in the Act.

11. It is no doubt true that that was a case where a higher interest for a certain period was held payable i.e. 12 per cent instead of 9 per cent but the principle would be the same as applicable to either the acquiring authority or to a party who has been deprived of the land. If the statute prescribes an amount of interest to be paid, then that interest must be paid.

12. In the present case the appellant in any case is getting less than the market value for compensation as determined by this Court in view of the fact that the appeal was restricted to a rate less than what was determined by this Court. Be that as it may, directions passed by the Court from time to time are that technicalities should not come in the way of the compensation being paid to the land owner who has been deprived of his land. Simultaneously, the Government should not suffer on account of the delay on the part of a party. If these tests are applied to the present case, it cannot but be said that there was no delay on the part of the appellant in the disposal of the appeal.

13. The question of compensation in the area was pending consideration which came to be decided on 02.08.2001. Soon thereafter the judgment in the present case was passed on 30.08.2001 following the said judgment in Pirthi and Ors. v. Union of India 's case (supra). There is no sufferance to the Union of India or any loss till the date of the judgment. Thus even if the legal heirs had been brought on record within time, the enhanced compensation would have been held payable only from 30.08.2001.

14. On the amount of compensation being so determined, the amount can be paid to the beneficiary. The absence of the legal representatives thereafter has naturally delayed the payment of the enhanced amount. Learned Counsel for the applicants has already fairly stated that for the period from the date of the judgment till the date of the application no amount was being claimed. The set of orders relied upon by learned Counsel for the applicants including in RFA No. 18/1986 titled Sh.Kanwar Singh and Ors v. Union of India; decided on 12.05.2005 would be of no benefit to the applicants as they pertain to cases where the appeal has been filed belatedly with an application for condensation of delay. In such cases on account of the fact that the delay is on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal, the appellants have been held dis-entitled to interest for the period of delay as the Union of India should not be burdened with costs of interest when the appellants have not filed an appeal. In the present case, the appeal was already pending and even if the legal representatives had already been brought on record, there was no question of any early adjudication of the appeal and thus no consequential loss to the Union of India.

15. In view of the aforesaid we are of the considered view that the legal heirs are liable to be brought on record, the abatement set aside but subject to the condition that the imp leaded legal representatives would be dis-entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation from 30.08.2001 till date of filing of the application on 26.04.2006.

16. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.