Sarup Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5252 Del

                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI



     LA.APP. No. 760/2006


                                   Judgment reserved on: 29.10.2009

                                         Date of Decision: 16.12.2009



 Sarup Singh & Ors.                                 ...... APPELLANTS
                          Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Adv.

                          Versus

UOI & Ors.                                        ..... RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not? Yes

S.L. BHAYANA, J

The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the

award/order dated 3.3.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge,

Delhi in LAC No. 3/2004

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the land of the

appellants' predecessor late Shri Chajju situated in village Sahpur,

measuring 6 bighas was acquired u/s 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition

Act 1894, vide award no 17/1986-87 dated 01.09.1986. The reference

petition was filed before Land Acquisition Collector on 26.09.1986

which was sent to the learned ADJ, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi for

adjudication. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award assessed the

market value at the rate Rs 13,000 per bigha for category "A" Rs

11,000 per bigha for category "B" and Rs 8,000 per bigha for category

"C" and also granted other statutory benefits. Though the

compensation has been increased from 13,000/- to Rs 47,224 per

bigha by the learned ADJ, but the appellants have not been given

statutory interest for the period 29.04.1991 to 11.09.2001 on the

grounds that public exchequer should not be made to suffer due to the

fault of the petitioners or his LRs. The fault of the appellant is that the

petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 29.04.91 and restored

only on 11.09.2001.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that, the

learned ADJ has awarded the compensation of Rs.47, 224/- per bigha

to the petitioners but they have been wrongly denied the benefit of

interest for the period with effect from 29.04.1991 to 11.09.2001 by

the trial court. The counsel for the appellants has relied upon the

judgment titled Sunder Singh vs. Union of India 93(2001) DLT

567.

4. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that the LRs will

not be entitled to get interest for the period from 29.4.1991 to

11.9.2001 as the appellants failed to pursue this case during this

period and the public exchequer should not be made to suffer due to

the fault of the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the

judgment of Division Bench of this Court in 120(2005) DLT 348 titled

"Kanwar Singh Vs. Union of India", wherein it has been held that

it has been the consistent practice of this court in a number of matters

that whenever such application have been filed belatedly, the same

are allowed only subject to restriction of non -grant of interest for the

period of delay from the date of filling of the appeals or the date of

filing of application. The 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 and costs in respect of a claimant who has

chosen not to claim the amount before the competent court. The

matter of the grant of interest is in the discretion of the court and the

Supreme Court in Raghubhans Narain Singh Vs. The U.P.

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.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

above view has been followed by this Hon'ble court in number of

cases consistently where ever there is a delay and default on the part

of the appellant in pursuing the case. Learned counsel for the

respondents has also relief upon the judgment Jagmohan vs. UOI,

2006 (131) DLT 374. It is submitted that this Hon'ble court has

been condoning the delay liberally on the part of the land owner and

granted equal compensation to all the affected owners. At the same

time declining to exercise the discretion in favor of the defaulting

parties in as much as it is well settled law that no person can take

advantage of his own wrong. Apart from this rate of interest under

the LA Act is 15% PA and no financial institution is paying this much

interest. In case the interest is also claimed by the defaulting party

and granted then it would amount to getting premium over the

dilatory tactics. In the present case the interest for the default period

would be about 150% of the compensation amount, which would be

more than the principal amount. The learned reference court has

rightly observed that the public exchequer cannot be made to suffer

for the fault of the appellants, who were negligent in pursuing the

case in as much as even the application for restoration was dismissed

for non prosecution and was restored on payment of costs.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the reliance of the

appellant on the judgment of this Hon'ble court in case of Sri Ram

and others V. UOI and others is totally misplaced, the facts of both

the cases are different. In that case restoration was applied

immediately and the case was resorted in a couple of months. The

decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Raghubhans Narain

Singh (supra) was also not brought to notice of the Hon'ble Court,

which is applicable to facts of the present case.

9. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Raghubhans Narain Singh (supra) and also by

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunder Singh Vs. UOI

(supra). The facts of both these cases apply to the facts of the present

case also. The petition before the learned trial court was dismissed

for non-prosecution on 29.4.1991 and it was restored only on

11.9.2001 i.e after more than ten years of the dismissal of the

petition. The petitioners were negligent in moving an application

before the Court for restoration of the petition. Even the petition for

restoration was dismissed by the reference Court and the said petition

for restoration was restored by the learned trial Court on payment of

costs by the petitioners. In my opinion the appellants were negligent

in pursuing the matter diligently and carefully. The public exchequer

should not be made to suffer due to the fault of the appellant and the

LRs of the appellant. In my opinion the appellants are not entitled to

interest for this period from 29.4.1991 to 10.9.2001 during which the

petition remained dismissed for non-prosecution. There is no merit in

the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is therefore dismissed.

10. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

S.L.BHAYANA, J

December 16, 2009