Land Acquisition – Statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period in approaching the High Court – Respondents/original claimants claimed parity in compensation with other land owners – There was a huge delay of five and a half years in preferring the appeals by the original claimants before the High Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court – The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation at par with the other land owners/claimants and condoned the delay of five and a half years – Appellants contended that there was a huge delay and same was not required to be condoned by the High Court – Appellants further contended that the High Court ought not have awarded the statutory benefits and the interest for the delayed period – On appeal, held: Considering the fact that in other matters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the delay and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount of compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands were acquired for the same project vide the same notification – There was no fault with the order passed by the High Court in condoning delay – Further, the order condoning the delay had attained finality as the same was not challenged – Insofar as the statutory benefits and the interest for the delayed period is concerned, while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, the Supreme Court in various cases has denied the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in approaching the High Court – Merely because at the time of condoning delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who was otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, which was not at all attributed to them – Under the circumstances, the order of the High Court modified to the extent denying the interest to the respondents/original claimants on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in preparing appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that there was a huge delay of five and a half years in preferring the appeals before the High Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. However, considering the fact that in other matters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the delay and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount of compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands were acquired for the same project vide the same notification. Therefore, as such, no fault can be found with the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay. It is required to be noted that as such the order condoning the delay has attained finality as the same was not challenged by the appellant at the relevant time. [Para 4] [88-D-F]
2. Whether for the delayed period the claimants shall be entitled to the statutory benefits and the interest under the Land Acquisition Act?
2.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra. In the case of Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal before this Court, while enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other similarly situated land owners, this Court has denied the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in approaching the High Court by way of LPAs. Similar view is expressed by this Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) and while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, this Court has denied the interest for the period of delay. Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, which is not at all attributed to them. Under the circumstances, the common impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court awarding the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in preferring the appeals deserve to be quashed and set aside and the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. [Para 4.1] [88-G-H; 89-A-C] Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana (2014)
14 SCC 127 ; K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2017) 12 SCC 840 : [2017] 6 SCR 524 – relied on.
Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari (1996) 1 SCC 311 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 787 ; Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 : [1987] 2 SCR 387 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.