GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular First Appeal No. 130 of 1964, was allowed by us vide our judgment dated March 8, 1977, and the appellants-petitioners were held to be entitled to enhanced amount of Rs. 17,919.30 with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date the possession of the land was taken by the State Government under the impugned notifications. This application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed to get the said order reviewed so far as the payment of interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum is concerned.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), were amended by Haryana Act 8 of 1967, by means of which the rate of interest payable to a landowner under the award was enhanced from 4 per cent 6 to per cent per annum from the date the State took possession of the land upto the date of payment of such excess into Court. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General, however, contended that the Haryana Act 8 of 1967 was enforced with effect from July 1, 1967, but the proceedings regarding the determination of compensation had been initiated before the enforcement of the said Act and, therefore, the appellants-petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum and not at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. It has been urged that the enhanced rate of interest is payable to the landowners whose lands had been acquired only in those cases where the proceedings for determination of compensation are initiated after July 1, 1967. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.V.H.E.P. Sagar v. B. Channaveerappa, 1968 AIR(Mys) 13 In the said case, the District Judge awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the aggregate compensation payable to the claimants. It was contended on behalf of the State that since under the amended section interest was claimable only at the rate of 5 per cent, the District Judge could not have directed the payment of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The contention raised on behalf of the State was repelled and it was held that on the date when the land acquisition proceedings of that section as it stood at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. It was further held that the right to claim interest at 6 per cent per annum was a vested right which was saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Thus, in the case before the Mysore High Court, the claimant was entitled to higher interest before amendment of Section 34, and the Mysore High Court without much discussion, came to the conclusion that the claimant had a vested right of which he could not be divested as a result of amendment. In the present case, however, the facts are entirely different. After the award was given by the Collector, the amount of compensation was enhanced by the District Judge and subsequently, the amount was further enhanced by us vide our judgment, referred to above. Though the claimants had been deprived of their land and possession had been taken from them before the announcement of the award by the Collector, the compensation was not paid to them. A close perusal of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, makes it clear that the object of the amendment by enhancing the rate of interest from 5 per cent to 6 per cent per annum clearly is that where the State is anxious to take possession of the land under acquisition, but does not make the payment of compensation to the claimants, the latter are entitled in equity under all principles of justice to higher rate of interest because they are deprived of their land as well as the compensation, therefor a considerable time and if the amount of compensation were paid in time, the same could be utilised for a fruitful purpose from which income could accrue to the claimants. There is no indication either in Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act, that higher rate of interest is not intended to be paid where the proceedings for determination of compensation were initiated before the coming into force of the amending Act, by which the rate of interest was enhanced. On the other hand, the intention seems to be very clear that after the enforcement of the amending Act, the claimants must be paid interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

(3.) The next question to be determined is as to whether the claimants should be paid higher rate of interest on the enhanced amount awarded by our judgment from the date the possession was taken or from the date of our order. Before the appeal had been allowed by us, the appellants-petitioners could not claim the enhanced amount of compensation, nor was the State Government liable to pay the same. Therefore, the claimants cannot be held to be entitled to the payment of higher rate of interest so far as the enhanced amount is concerned from the date of possession of land, but they are entitled to the same only from the date of the judgment when the enhanced amount was allowed.