WALLAMPHANG ROY Vs. SPECIAL BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed by the claimant/award holder.

(2.) Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in affirming the judgment passed by the Reference Court, the learned Single Judge has overlooked Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act, 1894) which has clearly stipulated the rate of interest to be paid at different stages of the proceeding. It is submitted that while the Reference Court has followed the statutory mandate of Sec. 28 read with Sec. 34 of the LA Act,1894, the learned Single Judge has reduced the rate of interest without taking into consideration of the aforesaid provisions of law. It is also submitted that several decisions of the Supreme Court had mandated that in disposing of a reference and in deciding the amount of compensation to be payable, the courts cannot depart the statutory mandate of Sec. 28 read with Sec. 34 of the LA Act, 1894. Any decision rendered in ignorance or contrary to the statutory mandate and the decisions of the Supreme Court would be an error of law apparent on the face of record and in such a situation, the review court has the power to correct any mistake on the part of the court as it would be considered to be a sufficient reason to review the order. The power of court is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court and in the instant case since there is a clear departure from the settled principles of law laid down by the several decisions of the Supreme Court and the order was passed in ignorance of Ss. 28and 34 of the LA Act, 1894, the order is required to be reviewed in so far as it denied interest in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act, 1894.

(3.) Learned senior counsel has submitted that the decisions of the Supreme Court in (2001 )10 scc 496: K.G. Derasari and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. and (1997) 9 SCC 673: Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Hailakandi have reiterated the principle that the entitlement of the claimant to the interest on the excess compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the authority took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into the Court and in addition thereto if such amount is not deposited within one year from the date on which possession was taken the interest at the rate of 15% per annum on such excess from the date of expiry of one year is a statutory mandate and any decision rendered in ignorance of the previous decisions of the Supreme Court could be a ground to file an application for review.