NET RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the dispute in these twenty two writ petitions is common, this judgment will govern each one of them. While hearing the batch of writ petitions, learned Single Judge felt that" on account of views expressed by two Division Benches and a Single Judge, to which he did 'not subscribe to avoid uncertainty adjudication by the Full Bench is needed.

(2.) The question is whether direction for grant of interest can be given in respect of the amount of compensation from the date of award till the actual payment @ 15% or 18%, as the case may be. A brief reference to the factual aspect's would suffice. On 23.6.1989, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued in respect of large tract of land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Behlopur Khadar for the planned development of Delhi i.e. channalisation of Yamuna river. This was followed by declarations under Sections 6 and 17(1) of the Act issued on 22.6.1990. Ultimately, awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector (ME) on 19.6.1992. Possession of the land was not taken over by the Collector, Land Acquisition in one go hut the same was taken over in parcels from time to time from December 1990 upto September, 1995. Compensation was paid to the petitioner in each case sometime in 1994-95. Interest has been claimed by the petitioner in each case at the rate ol 15% 18% per annum from the date of the award till the dale ol actual payment. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners in two orders passed by Division Benches of this Court in Sher Singh v. Union of India (CWP 3095/92) dated 15.10.1993 and Rampat v,Union of India, (CW 3994/95) dated 26.3.1995 and the order of the Single Judge in CWP 1483/96 dated 25.4.1997.

(3.) Learned Single Judge noticed that there was no discussion regarding the basis on which interest has been allowed to land owners in the aforesaid three cases. Learned Single Judge was of the view that the Act is complete code covering the entire field of operation of acquisition of land by the State including its liability to pay interest to the land owners in certain contingencies. Therefore, he referred the matter to the Larger Bench, as noted above for opinion.