UNION OF INDIA Vs. PUSHPAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 13.4.1999 made in W.P.Nos.5486 to 5494 of 1999 and the order dated 13.7.1999 made in W.P.No.11806 of 1999. They arise out of common Land Acquisition Proceedings and as common question of law is involved thereon, all these appeals are taken together in dispose of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE Land Acquisition Proceedings was initiated by the appellants. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' 1894) was issued on 22.12.1986. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12.3.1987. Amount was awarded on 01.06.1987 under Award No,2/1987 and compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.318/- per Are. One Govindammal being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, moved under Section 18 of the Act, in L.A.O.P.No,337 of 1988 and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded Rs.1000/- per Kuzhi (Rs.1868/- per Are) on 09.05.1989. Having come to know, the Respondents/Land owners preferred application under Section 28A of the Act, on 08.08.1991 for redetermination of amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court in L.A.O.P.No,337 of 1988. All the applications filed by the Respondents/Land owners on 08.08.1991 were followed by the enquiry made on 05.06.1992. However, the applications under Section 28A of the Act have not been disposed of about 7 years, the Respondents/Land owners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10649 of 1996 etc. Those writ petitions were allowed on 19.8.1998 directing the Respondents therein to dispose of the representations. Pursuant to which, the Collector redetermined the compensation and awarded compensation enhancing the amount. THE orders were passed between 15.11.1994 and 22.11.1994.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union Territory of Pondicherry has submitted that in a case of Land Acquisition Proceedings this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the authorities to pay interest. THEre is no scope for such direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated either under Section 28 or under Section 34 of the Act. She placed reliance of the Supreme Court of India in D.D.A. vs. Mahender Singh & Anr. (2009 SAR (Civil) 439). He also placed reliance on the reasoning shown in the impugned order dated 14th Dec., 1998, relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder :-