UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these civil revisions are frivolous and a hopeless waste of time. The Union is in revision contending for an untenable position that the respective orders passed under the Land Acquisition Act do not provide for interest and the landowners have claimed interest from the date of the Collector's award, which, according to him, is erroneous. The assumption is, the interest component that is liable for deposit is a matter of discretion and unless it is specifically provided by the order of the Reference Court, the landowners cannot claim the same.

(2.) The amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in 1984 have brought about important changes in so far as it introduces Section 23(1-A) that spells out interest at 12% from the date of Section 4 notification till the date of taking possession or the award whichever is earlier, whenever the Reference Court passes an additional compensation to what is determined by the Collector. The other important change that was brought through the amendment was to allow for a higher percentage on solatium with 30% interest on the amount determined by the Reference Court as market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. The additional amount which is directed to be paid under Section 23 (1-A) is therefore statutorily protected. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is another provision relating to interest where the Collector on determination of compensation payable is required to deposit the amount and if the Reference Court determines the compensation higher than what the Collector had determined and which the Reference Court observes to be the amount which the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, the excess sum over which the Collector passed an award shall be liable for payment of interest at 9% per annum from the date when he took possession to the date of payment on such excess amount into Court as per the Reference Court order. The element of discretion which is available is that a Court may also direct where the excess amount is paid into Court after the expiry of a period of one year, it may provide for an interest @ 15% on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court. Consequently under Section 28 also, there is a statutory mandate that the Collector deposits the amount which is assessed as in excess over what the Collector himself had determined and such deposit shall be made within one year with interest at 9%. If only the amount was not deposited within one year, the Court would also direct interest which shall be at 15%. Section 34 is yet another provision that deals with the payment of interest which the Collector is liable when he determines the compensation as payable. This is at the stage where the reference has not even come, but when he has determined the amount as the compensation payable. In such cases, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% from the date of taking possession till he actually makes the deposit. If such amount is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession, there is a statutory mandate that higher rate of interest shall be 15% for the period in excess of one year. This component of higher rate of interest admits of no discretion by the Court but it is statutorily mandated.

(3.) In the scheme of things therefore there is no discretion left with any Court for excluding the liability of the State with interest under the situations contemplated in the three provisions, namely, Sections 23(1-A), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.