Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 18, 28 and 34 – Collector declining to award interest on compensation u/s. 28A proceedings to the landowners – Legal remedy available to the landowners against such order – Landowner should approach the Civil Court in reference u/s.28A(3) r/w. s.18 of the Act or should file writ petition u/s.226 of the Constitution – Held: A dispute relating to non-award of interest payable to the landowners u/s.28 and s.34 of the Act is not specified u/s. 18 and hence it is not capable of being referred by the Collector to the Civil Court u/s. 18 of the Act – It is also for the reason that payment of interest is statutory in character and being statutory, it is mandatory for payment once conditions specified u/s.28 or/and 34 are fulfilled – In Shree Vijay Cotton & Oils Mills case it was held that there is inherent evidence in the wording of ss. 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards – Accordingly, the dispute in relation to nonaward of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Art. 226 of the Constitution in writ petition – Reference u/s.18 or s.28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable u/s.28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court – Constitution of India – Art.
226. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The dispute relating to non-award of the interest to the landowners, whether under Section 28 or Section 34 is not a dispute, which falls under Section 18 or/and 28A(3) of the Act. In other words, a reference under Section 18 can only be made by the Collector in respect of those issues, which are specified under Section 18. [Para 36] [447-G-H]
2. A dispute relating to non-award of interest payable to the landowners under Section 28 or/and Section 34 of the Act is not specified under Section 18 and hence it is not capable of being referred by the Collector to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. It is also for the reason that payment of interest is statutory in character and being statutory, it is mandatory for payment once conditions specified under Sections 28 or/and 34 are fulfilled. [Para 37] [448-A-B]
3. It is true that once the interest is awarded by the Court under section 28 or by the Collector under Section 34 of the Act, it becomes the part of the award. However, it is hardly of any significance and has no bearing for deciding the question of remedy to challenge issue relating to the non-award of interest. [Para 38] [448-C]
4. Such issue is required to be decided keeping in view the wording of Section 18 of the Act, which specifies the issues on which the reference can be made to the Court and non-award of interest is not the issue specified in Section 18 of the Act. In this view of the matter, no reference can be made to the Court to decide the issue of non-award of interest under Section 18 of the Act. [Para 39] [448-D]
5. This Court explained the object and scope of Sections
28 and 34 succinctly in the case of *Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. in the following words: “There is inherent evidence in the wording of ss.28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards...” [Para 41] [448-F-G]
6. Accordingly, the dispute in relation to non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in writ petition. In other words, reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court. [Para 42] [449-D]
*Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1991) 1 SCC 262 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 447; Delhi Development Authority v. Mahender Singh & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 339 : [2009] 4 SCR 788 – relied on.
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.