M/S Prabhu Land & Finance vs Union Of India & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 141 Del

                                                           Signature Not Verified
                                                           Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                           Signing Date:15.01.2022
                                                           18:48:27



$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            Date of decision: 14th January, 2022
+                LA.APP. 1/2020
       M/S PRABHU LAND & FINANCE               ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate.
                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI.
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. CM APPL.2536/2022 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM APPL.2535/2022 (delay in filing review)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 415 days in filing the review petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. Review Petition 13/2022 in LA.APP.1/2020

4. This review petition has been filed on behalf of the Union of India seeking review of the judgment dated 7th January, 2020 passed in this petition. Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel appearing for the review applicant - Union of India submits that while the compensation has been awarded in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15th October 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 61/2018 titled Balwant Singh v. UOI & Anr., there are certain other reliefs which were given by the ld. ADJ-02 (South) Saket/ New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") vide judgment dated 31st March 2016, which were not permissible. He relies upon Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:15.01.2022 18:48:27

1894 (hereinafter "the Act") to argue that two interest components, which were awarded by Trial Court, were contrary to law. He submits that at the time when the judgment dated 7th January, 2020 was passed, due to an inadvertent error, this issue was not pointed out to the Court.

5. Mr. Inder Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he has no objection and he concurs with Mr. Jain.

6. A perusal of the Trial Court judgment/decree dated 31 st March, 2016 shows that the following reliefs have been granted in favour of the Appellant.

"i) 30% solatium u/s 23 (2) of Act, 1894;

ii) Interest @ 12% p.a. from date of notification up-to date of Award;

iii) 9% interest on excess amount awarded by Court from date of notification up-to date of Award by LAC or date of taking possession, whichever is earlier;

iv) 9% interest on excess amount awarded by Court (from date of dispossession of land to date of deposit of excess amount in Court, for one year)

v) 15% p.a. on such excess amount for subsequent period of one year till amount is deposited in Court."

7. As per Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel, the interest as per reliefs (ii) and (iii) above could not have been granted, as the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Section 23(1)(A) of the Act reads as under:

"23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation.

1......

[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:15.01.2022 18:48:27

respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.]"

8. As per the above provision, interest can be granted from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 till the date of taking possession or the date of award of the Collector, whichever is earlier. In view of this provision, interest would be liable to be paid @ 12% per annum in this case, from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e., dated 16th October, 2000, till the date of taking possession i.e., 6th July, 2001, as this is the earlier date.

9. Insofar as the award of interest amount @ 9% per annum on the excess amount is concerned, the same would not be liable to be allowed as the period is overlapping. Accordingly, the said 9% interest given under relief no. (iii) would not be sustainable and, accordingly, is set aside. Reliefs granted at relief granted at serial no.(ii) shall stand modified as above and relief granted at serial no.(iii) is set aside.

10. With these observations, the review application is allowed and is, accordingly, disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 14, 2022/dk/sk