MAHENDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent to make payment of statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of his land in terms of Award No. 3/1997-98 dated 10.12.1997. They also pray for awarding of penal interest on the awarded compensation for culpable and intentional delay on the part of the respondent in making the payment of compensation to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a poor farmer whose land was acquired by the Delhi Administration, Government of NCT of Delhi, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the of the Act dated 6.4.1964. The acquisition proceedings were unduly delayed and the award was made after a lapse of more than 33 years, and the possession of the acquired lands, including the land of the petitioner measuring about 8 bighas 4 biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 145/1 (2-8) and 146 (4-16) in the revenue estate of Village Ali, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi was taken on 26.5.1998. The compensation in terms of the award dated 6.4.1964 was paid to the petitioner on 18.5.2005 i.e. after a lapse of more than 7 years from the date of taking over of the possession and after the petitioner had pursued his claim with the respondent possession of this land was taken on 26.5.1998. The interest in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act for the years 1998 to 2005 (May) is still due to the claimants. The petitioner had made requests to the respondent for release of the interest under Section 34 of the Act as back as in July'2005-August'2005. Despite these requests sent to the respondent, the copies of which have been placed on record along with the writ petition, the petitioner was not paid his dues and, in fact, the petitioner did not even receive any reply to these applications. Petitioner also claim to have filed petition under Section 18 of the Act, which has been referred to the Reference Court of competent jurisdiction and is stated to be pending. Reference in this petition has also been made to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Chand and another vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another (W.P.(C) No. 10943-10944/2004), wherein the Court had directed the respondents to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioners in those writ petitions within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and had also directed that the reference applications filed by the claimants be referred to the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Sriaya were the petitioners in that case whose land had been acquired vide same notification from the revenue estate of the same village. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that they were under the bonafide impression that the respondent in furtherance to the order of the Division Bench would pay the compensation with all statutory benefits and without any further delay. Despite such an order and even applications being sent to the respondent by the petitioner, the respondent had failed to clear the dues of compensation payable to the claimants, resulting in filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondent filed an affidavit through Mr. A.K. Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, as well as produced the records in court. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit that the possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary i.e. 'Delhi Development Authority' (for short 'DDA') on 26.5.1998. It is even submitted that notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued to the claimants and the claimants in turn filed their claims @ Rs.2000/- per bigha. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had full knowledge of announcement of the award, and had applied for payment of compensation after making of the award on 2.8.2004 which was processed and formalities were completed on 12.5.2005. Thereafter, a cheque was issued to the petitioner on 18.5.2005. The claim of the petitioner that he would be entitled to receive interest as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Act is not disputed. It is stated that a demand was raised on the beneficiary (DDA) on 12.5.2005 followed by a reminder dated 26.8.2005, however, no response had been received from the DDA nor the DDA has paid that amount. Though, DDA was not impleaded as a party in the present writ petition, but in similar matters the stand of the DDA was that interest under Section 34 was not payable to the claimants.