Sanjeev Kumar vs Land Acquisition Collector & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 4792 Del

$~
             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of decision: 27th September, 2011

+        W.P.(C) 537/2010
         PROMILA GUPTA                                   ......Petitioner

+        W.P.(C) 5886/2010
         RAJ BALA & ORS                                 ......Petitioners

                               -VERSUS-
         GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                  ..... Respondents

                                  AND

+    .   W.P.(C) 6984/2011
         SANJEEV KUMAR                                   ......Petitioner

+        W.P.(C) 6985/2011
         ISHWAR SINGH                                     .....Petitioner

+        W.P.(C) 6986/2011
         KARAMVIR & ORS                                  .....Petitioners

+        W.P.(C) 6987/2011
         BHARAT SINGH & ANR                             ......Petitioners

+        W.P.(C) 6988/2011
         ROHTAS                                          ......Petitioner

+        W.P.(C) 6989/2011
         FATEH SINGH & ORS                              ......Petitioners

+        W.P.(C) 6990/2011
         BALLU RAM & ORS                                ......Petitioners

+        W.P.(C) 6991/2011
         ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS                            ......Petitioners



W.P.(C) No.537/2010                                      Page 1 of 10
 +    W.P.(C) 6992/2011
     PREM SINGH & ORS                                         .....Petitioners

                                   -VERSUS-
     LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR                      ..... Respondents


Present: Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv. for petitioner(s) in W.P.(C) No.s
           6984-92 all of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 5886/2010
           Ms. Sumi Anand for Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. for petitioner in W.P.(C)
           537/2010

           Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.
           Kaomidi Kiran & Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-1 along with Mr. Lal
           Singh, LAC (NW) in all.
           Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav, Adv. for UOI/LAC in
           W.P.(C) No.s 6984-92 all of 2011
           Ms. Pooja Bahuguna for Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for DDA in
           W.P.(C) No.s 6984-92 all of 2011
           Ms. Renuka Arora, Adv. for DSIIDC in W.P.(C) No. 537/2010

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may              not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?             not necessary

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported            not necessary
       in the Digest?




W.P.(C) No.537/2010                                           Page 2 of 10
 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. W.P.(C) 537/2010 & W.P.(C) 5886/2010 seek mandamus for

payment of the compensation for acquisition of land under the Special

Rehabilitation Package (SRP) announced by the Land & Building Deptt.

of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 1st October, 2008. Though in W.P.(C)

Nos.6984 to 6992 all of 2011, besides the said relief, a relief for payment

of the award amount was also claimed but the counsel for the petitioners

state that the same has been since received and now does not survive;

however the said writ petitioners also seek direction for payment of

interest @ 18% per annum on the award amount from the date the said

amount was deposited by the DDA with the office of the respondent Land

Acquisition Collector (LAC) and till the date of its disbursement.

2. I will first take up the aspect of claim for interest.

3. Though at first blush, it appeared that the claim for interest should

have been a subject matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 but the counsel for the petitioners has contended

that Section 18 envisages disputes as to compensation till the making of

the award in as much as the reference has to be sought within 42 days

from the date of service of notice of making of the award. It is contended

that the claim for interest made in the writ petitions is for the reason of

the delay in making the payment after the award and particularly when

DDA, for whose benefit land was acquired, had deposited the awarded

amount with the LAC. It is thus stated that the claim for post award

interest cannot be subject matter of reference under Section 18 of the Act.

The senior counsel for the respondent LAC also does not controvert the

said position.

4. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that under Section

23(1A) of the Act, interest on the compensation as per market rate from

the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of

award or of taking possession, whichever is earlier is provided; that the

purport was to compensate the owner of the land for the delays; that the

Act does not provide for any interest for the period of delay between date

of making of award and taking over of the possession. It is stated that in

the present case the award was made on 16 th February, 2009, the

compensation amount was deposited by the respondent DDA with the

respondent LAC in November, 2009 but possession taken only in June,

2011 and in pursuance to the order in W.P.(C)5886/2010 and the award

amount disbursed only in August, 2011. It is contended that the

respondent LAC cannot be permitted to enjoy the amounts deposited by

the respondent DDA and is liable to pay interest thereon as claimed.

5. On enquiry from the counsel for the petitioners as to why the

petitioners should be held entitled to interest for the said delay even if any

since the petitioners continued to enjoy the benefits and possession of the

land, the counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners could not

fully enjoy the land even though continued in possession thereof since

under threat of acquisition they could not be expected to make any

improvements etc. on the land and thus could not fully beneficially enjoy

the land. On further enquiry, as to what improvements could have been

made, the land being agricultural, the counsel states that the irrigation

facilities for better yield from the land could have been improved and

improvement whereof was not made owing to the sword of acquisition

hanging over their head.

6. On further enquiry from the counsel for the petitioners, that

acquisition being in the nature of compulsory exaction of land, as to how

in the absence of any statutory provision the claim for interest can be

made, the counsel for the petitioners refers to Ram Chand v. Union of

India (1994) 1 SCC 44 (para 22 & 26) to contend that interest beyond

what is provided in the Act can also be awarded.

7. Per contra, the senior counsel for the respondent LAC has

contended that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in Udey Singh v. Union of India 112 (2004)

DLT 739 where it has been held that in the absence of any provision in

the Act for payment of interest from the date of award, if no possession is

taken, the Courts cannot fill up the gap and have no option but to reject

the claim for payment of interest for the said period. He also contends

that the interpretation by the counsel for the petitioners of the judgment in

Ram Chand (supra) is erroneous and the Supreme Court has not laid

down any such proposition as is contended. It is further contended, that

the Supreme Court in Ram Chand had only directed payment of

additional amount; that Ram Chand pertains to the pre 1984 amendment

period and therefore in any case would not be applicable to the position

as prevailing now.

8. The counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder contends that binding

judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Chand was not noticed by the

Division Bench in Udey Singh (supra) and the judgment in Udey Singh is

thus per incuriam. He has also contended that the Division Bench did not

consider the devaluation of the rupee and the entitlement of the land

owner whose land has been compulsorily acquired to compensation of the

value as on the date of the Notification.

9. Having perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Udey

Singh, I am of the view that the same completely covers the claim made

by the petitioners for interest for the period between the date of the award

and the date of taking over of the possession and it is not for this Bench to

form a different opinion. If according to the counsel for the petitioners,

any relevant arguments remained to be considered in Udey Singh, the

same have to be raised before the Division Bench only and not before this

Bench. Thus the claim for interest made in W.P.(C) Nos. 6984-6992 all of

2011 cannot be entertained and is dismissed.

10. As far as the claim for SRP is concerned, the respondents in

W.P.(C) 537/2010 & W.P.(C) 5886/2010 have been repeatedly given

time for taking instructions with respect thereto. The senior counsel for

the respondent LAC today also states that since a dispute had arisen as to

the solatium and interest on the SRP, the same has been referred to the

Cabinet of the Delhi Government for decision and only thereafter

payment can be released.

11. It is further contended that in terms of the order dated 1 st October,

2008 announcing the SRP, the land owners desirous of availing of the

same were required to make an application therefor. It is contended that

without making any such application, the land owners cannot be held to

be entitled to seek any relief for grant of such SRP.

12. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners controverts that there was

any such requirement. It is contended that the petitioners have not sought

reference under Section 18 of the Act within the prescribed time in the

light of the said SRP, and as per Clause 7 of the order dated 1 st October,

2008 which is as under:-

"7. The Special Rehabilitation Package should be accepted by individual farmers and made applicable in each case only, if they do not mount a challenge to the award already announced by the LAC. If they have challenged the award they must withdraw the petition to avail of the benefit of the Special Rehabilitation Package."

are required to make statement only at the time of receiving

payment under the SRP.

13. The order dated 1st October, 2008 does not provide for any

application as contended to be made; rather Clause 7 aforesaid indicates

that even those who may have challenged the award are entitled to avail

of the SRP upon withdrawing the challenge earlier made by them.

Moreover in view of the categorical statement of the counsel for the

petitioners that none of the petitioners have challenged the award, the

delay in implementation of the SRP is inexplicable.

14. Need is not felt to keep the petitions pending on this aspect. The

only relief possible is to direct the respondents to offer the payments

under the SRP in a time bound fashion. The petitions in so far as claiming

the relief of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the

SRP announced on 1 st October, 2008 is concerned, are disposed of with a

direction to the respondent LAC to offer payment under the SRP

announced on 1st October, 2008 on or before 1st December, 2011.

15. The senior counsel for the respondent LAC has contended that the

payment should be directed as per the decision to be taken by the Cabinet.

It is further contended that the Cabinet is to take a decision as to whether

the SRP is to contain the elements of solatium and interest which in terms

of the order dated 1st October, 2008 were to be as per Rules.

16. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the SRP announced

and on the basis whereof the petitioners have not sought reference, having

mentioned that the elements of award namely solatium and interest would

be allowed as per Rules, the Cabinet cannot now change the decision. The

counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 537/2010 further contends that the

respondent LAC had appeared in person before the Court on 18 th April,

2011 and had assured that the compensation will be released on or before

16th May, 2011. It is further stated that only relief in the said writ petition

was of compensation under the SRP.

17. This Court today can issue the direction only in terms of order

dated 1st October, 2008 before this Court. If the said order is re-

called/reviewed, the parties will have appropriate remedies with respect

thereto.

18. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 pp.