P.C. WADHWA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of directions to respondent No. 3-Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad to pay the petitioners interest as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). It is conceded position that the petitioners were owners of land/godown comprised in Khasra Nos. 576, 585 and 587 situated in Had Bast No. 38, Mauza Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar. In order to acquire the land, notification dated 17.4.2002 was issued by the respondent-State under Section 4 of the Act. After hearing of objections, a declaration was issued on 10.4.2003 under Section 6 of the Act. A part of the land in Khasra No. 587, owned by the petitioners was released on 21.6.2004 (Annexure P-3) and award was announced on 25.6.2004. However, on the application made by the petitioners for acquisition of the released land, a notification under Section 6 was issued on 18.2.2005 (Annexure P-4) and the portion of the land under the godown in Khasra No. 587 was also acquired. In respect of that part of the land, award was announced on 31.3.2005. The petitioners have claimed that they were paid the compensation including the solatium and additional compensation @ 12% in September, 2005, which was calculated up to 25.6.2004 although additional compensation @ 12% for the portion of Khasra No. 587 acquired and taken into possession on 31.3.2005 should have been paid from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners have claimed that the first petitioner was present at the time of announcement of the award at P.W.D. Rest House at Bahadurgarh but no compensation was deposited with the Court as per requirement of Section 31 of the Act. As a consequence of failure of the respondent to comply with the mandatory provisions, there was delay in making the payment of compensation which was actually paid in September, 2005, and, therefore, interest under Section 34 of the Act @ 9% per annum for one year and @ 15% per annum thereafter from the date of possession of the said portion of the land till the date of actual payment has become payable. The petitioners are stated to have filed a representation dated 17.9.2005 (Annexure P-5) in that regard but without any success.

(2.) THE petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as to whether the amount paid to them in September, 2005 included the element of interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter, which was payable under Section 34 of the Act. It was further enquired what is the amount of interest paid. There were further queries that the interest has not been paid or whether the respondents wishes to pay the same. In reply to the aforesaid queries it was considered that the compensation has been paid in September, 2005 and the matter with regard to the payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act had been referred by the Collector to the Urban Estates Department on 6.10.2006 which was pending. A communication from the Collector-respondent No. 3 is that the payment of compensation was made to the petitioners in April, 2005 and September, 2005 but no payment of interest on the awarded amount has been made under Section 34 of the Act. It has further been clarified that the Land Acquisition Collector is not competent to make the payment of interest on the compensation at his own level under Section 34 of the Act and the petitioners were advised to approach the competent Court to claim interest.

(3.) THE factual position which emerges is that the petitioners have mentioned their share in Khasra Nos. 576, 585 and 587 as is evident from the perusal of affidavit dated 19.6.2004. Even the share of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have been correctly shown. There are various other assertions made by the petitioners in their replication. It has also been asserted, although the provisions of Section 34 requiring the payment of interest from the date of possession till the date of payment, are mandatory but respondent has never followed the same causing loss to the land owners.