NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MITHLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RFA No.382/1996 was directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby compensation payable to the land owners was enhanced to Rs.36,400/- per bigha. The said appeal was, together with a few other cases, disposed of by a common order dated 4.3.2004 enhancing the compensation from Rs.36,400/- per bigha to Rs.47,224/- per bigha. The order proceeded on the basis of an earlier decision of this Court in Sita Ram v. Union of India RFA 619/1993 decided on 23.12.1999 pertaining to the very same village. A reading of the common order passed by this Court would show that apart from enhancing the compensation from Rs.36,400/- to 47,224/- per bigha, this Court had held the appellants entitled to 12% additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and a solatium of 30% on the market value of the land. The Court had also directed payment of interest on the excess amount @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector till the date of payment of such excess in the Court. The rate of interest was to stand enhanced to 15% per annum in case the payment of the excess or any part thereof was made after the expiry of period of one year from the date on which possession was taken. The present review application now seeks modification of the said order to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to receive inteerst on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) and the amount of solatium payable to the land owners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the decision of this Court dated 4.3.2004 was made on the analogy of the earlier order passed by this Court in Sita Ram vs. Union of India, RFA No.619/1993 referred to above. At the time the decision in Sita Ram's case was delivered the legal position as regards the entitlement of the land owners to claim interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act and on the amount of solatium had not been authoritatively settled. The legal position was finally settled by the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India DLT 2001 (93) 569. Even when the said decision was available at the time the present appeal was disposed of by this Court on 4.3.2004, this Court's attention does not appear to have been drawn to the same with the result that no direction regarding payment of interest on the additional amount of compensation payable under Section 23(1A) or on the solatium was issued. This appears to be the position in some other cases also where directions regarding payment of interest on the amount of additional compensation and the amount of solatium were not issued. The errors in those cases were, however, corrected by way of review petitions filed by the land owners and the land owners held entitled to recover interest on the said two additional components also. Our attention in this regard was drawn to an order passed by this Court in review petition No.86/2006 which was disposed of in similar circumstances by this Court holding the land owners entitled to recover interest on the additional compensation and solatium. It was contended that this Court could condone delay in the filing of the review petition and modify the orders passed by this Court on 4.3.2004 with the direction that the appellants would be entitled to recover interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23 (1A) and on the solatium payable to them. On behalf of the respondents, it was on the other hand, submitted that there is a delay of nearly two years and ten months in the filing of the present review petition. The order under review having been made on 4.3.2004, the present review application filed on 15.1.2007 is obviously delayed. It was urged that while this Court could condone the delay, as prayed for, any such order of condonation should not be unconditional. It was submitted that this Court could exclude from reckoning the period of two years and ten months during which the petitioner remained inactive and did not make any move for getting the order passed by this Court reviewed. Any other view would amount to the petitioner taking benefit of his own fault by claiming interest at the enhanced rate while sleeping over the matter.

(3.) There is, in our view, considerable merit in the contention urged on behalf of the respondents. While the delay of two years and ten months can, for the reasons stated by the petitioner, be condoned, the same cannot be unconditional. Interest of justice demand that the period covered by the delay of two years and ten months should not enure to the benefit of the appellants/petitioners herein for purposes of payment of interest both on the additional amount of compensation under Section 23 (1A) and the amount of solatium. We, accordingly, allow CM No.980/2007 and condone the delay subject to the that condition.