Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 539 (GAU)

Lalhleia v. Union of India

2008-07-29

H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners to issue a rule or pass any other appropriate order(s) or direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the interest accumulated on the principal rental compensation amount of Rs. 39,05,890/- till 29.6.2007 the date on which the said principal amount was paid. 2. The brief case of the writ petitioners is that they were the owner and possessors of the lands which was acquired in the year 1993 by the District Collector for the use and occupation of respondent No. 2 herein since 1964. On acquisition of the said lands in the year 1993, the District Collector Aizawl, respondent No. 3 herein assessed the compensation of the lands at Rs. 33,48,451/-, which, after deposit, was disbursed to the petitioners. The respondent No. 3, while assessing the compensation of the lands also assessed the rental compensation from January, 1964 to June, 1993 at Rs. 39,05,890/-. It was approved by the Government but the same was not paid by the respondent authorities. The petitioners finding no other alternative approached this Court by filing a Civil Rule No. 1390/96, which was later registered as LA No. 3/99. The said LA appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 25.9.2001. On the basis of the said order passed by the Division Bench, the District Collector, respondent No. 3 herein passed an Order on 12.6.2002 wherein interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from June 1993 was ordered to be paid on the rental compensation so assessed. The respondent authorities, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order passed in LA appeal No. 3/99. The said S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 & 2 again filed a review petition which ended in dismissal by judgment and order dated 16.5.2005. The respondents No. 1 & 2 approached this Court by writ petition being No. 100/05 challenging the dismissal order dated 16.5.2005. The said writ petition was also dismissed vide Order dated 10.8.2007. After dismissal of the writ petition W.P. (C) 100/05 vide Order dated 10.8.07, the respondent authorities paid the rental compensation amounting to Rs. 39,05,890/- on 29.6.07 without any interest as ordered to be paid. 3. The said writ petition was also dismissed vide Order dated 10.8.2007. After dismissal of the writ petition W.P. (C) 100/05 vide Order dated 10.8.07, the respondent authorities paid the rental compensation amounting to Rs. 39,05,890/- on 29.6.07 without any interest as ordered to be paid. 3. It is noticed from the records, annexure and affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that the respondent authorities paid interest up to 12.6.2002 and such fact can be ascertained from Annexure R/1 of the affidavit-in-opposition. A total sum of Rs. 41,99,098/- was paid to the petitioners by the respondent authorities as interest. The writ petitioners also admitted this fact of payment of interest by the respondent authorities to the tune of Rs. 41,99,098/-. 4. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits before this Court that the respondent authorities are further liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% p. a. on the rental compensation (principal) amounting to Rs. 39,05,890/- only on and from 13.6.2002 to 29.6.2007, the date of payment of the rental compensation (principal) to the writ petitioners. Mr. C. Lalramzauva therefore, in view of the fact situation submits that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities for payment of interest from 13.6.2002 to 29.6.2002. 5. Mr. S.N. Meitei while arguing raises the question of maintainability of this writ petition. He submits that the writ petitioners ought to have approached the appropriate authority (s) for the interest on the rental compensation from 13.6.2002 to 29.6.2007 and without approaching have filed this writ petition. 6. In view of the submission advanced by Mr. S.N. Meitei, it is submitted by Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the writ petitioners did not approach the respondent authorities for payment of the interest for the period nor did they file any application either before the respondent No. 3 or before the respondents No. 1 & 2 Mr. C. Lalramzauva further contents that this writ petition is filed because of non-payment of the interest at the rate of 12% from 13.6.2002 to 29.6.2007 despite existence of order to pay the rental compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 7. The principal rental compensation was paid on 29.6.2007 only therefore, this writ petitioners have no other option than to approach this Court for a direction to the respondent authorities. 8. The principal rental compensation was paid on 29.6.2007 only therefore, this writ petitioners have no other option than to approach this Court for a direction to the respondent authorities. 8. In the face of the facts appearing on the record, it would have been appropriate on the part of the writ petitioners to approach the respondent authorities for payment of interest at the rate of 12% on the rental compensation on and from 12.6.2002 to 29.6.2007 without approaching this writ court. 9. Having considered all the facts in its entirety and for ends of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the writ petitioners shall approach the respondent authorities (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) for payment of the interest at the rate of 12% on the rental compensation amounting to Rs. 39,05,890/- with effect from 13.6.2002 to 29.6.2007. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however, with No cost.