Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1387 (PNJ)

Chhajja Singh v. Union Of India

2010-04-06

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 24.1.2008 (P-9) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of interest on the delayed payment of compensation in respect of the land possession of which was taken in the year 1964-65 though acquired in the year 1969, vide notification dated 1.8.1969, but the payment of compensation was made on 22.9.2005. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release payment of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for 40 years i.e. rent from 1965 to 31.7.1969 and amount of compensation from 1.8.1969 to 22.9.2005, as per award dated 13.5.1977 (P-2) in terms of the law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Parmal Singh, 1 (2009) SCC 618. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the petitioners was acquired along with other co-owners in village Bair Majra, District Patiala (now District Mohali) vide notification dated 1.8.1969 for establishing Military Ammunition Depot under Scheme No. 5037/ACQ. It is claimed that though the land was acquired in the year 1969 but possession of the same was taken in the year 1964- 65 itself. It has been submitted that in respect of the land of other co-owners, whose land was also acquired along with the petitioners, compensation was assessed at different rates depending upon the nature of the land. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who enhanced the amount of compensation vide his award dated 13.5.J977 (P-2). Thereafter, even F.A.O. No. 323 of 1977 was filed in this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 18.2.1986 granting solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the acquired land and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession by the Land Acquisition Collector and at the rate of 15% thereafter till the date of actual payment (P-3). It has been alleged that the amount of other co-owners had been paid but no payment was made to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners (except petitioner No. 17) then filed CWP No. 3737 of 2001 in this Court, which was disposed of on 27.9.2001 on an undertaking given by the respondents that they would release the entire amount within seven days (P- 4). 3. The petitioners (except petitioner No. 17) then filed CWP No. 3737 of 2001 in this Court, which was disposed of on 27.9.2001 on an undertaking given by the respondents that they would release the entire amount within seven days (P- 4). When the directions were not complied with, the petitioners filed COCP No. 382 of 2004. Eventually, with the intervention of the Contempt Court, total payment of Rs. 22,129.25 paise was made through different cheques and the contempt proceedings against the respondents were discharged. Since, no interest was paid to the petitioners, therefore, liberty was granted to them to move the appropriate forum for ventilating any other grievance including interest, vide order dated 26.9.2005 (P-5). 4. On 11.11.2005, the petitioners served a legal notice claiming interest on the delayed payment of compensation (P-6). When no steps were taken fey the respondents, the petitioners again filed CWP Nos. 2907 of 2006 and 17914 of 2006, which were disposed of vide orders dated 10.9.2007 and 29.10.2007 respectively with a direction to the concerned authorities to dispose of the legal notice within a period of four weeks (P-7 & P-8). On 24.1.2008, the Defence Estates Officer, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2, rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of interest on the ground that there is no provision for payment of interest and damages under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for brevity, the RAIP Act) whereunder the land of the petitioners was acquired. 5. In the short reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been asserted in para 2(iii) that on receipt of sanction from the competent authority based on the assessment by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, the entire amount was deposited with the Collector by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, there was nothing due to be paid by them including the interest on the delayed payment. However, no detail when the amount was deposited with the Collector has been furnished in the reply. 6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, the stand taken is that the petitioners have not placed full and complete facts before this Court. It has been pointed out that land measuring 66 Bighas 5 Biswas, which was in the cultivating possession of the petitioners/their predecessors in village Bair Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was acquired as per jamabandi for the year 1966-67. It has been pointed out that land measuring 66 Bighas 5 Biswas, which was in the cultivating possession of the petitioners/their predecessors in village Bair Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was acquired as per jamabandi for the year 1966-67. The said land was described as Shamlat Den in the column of ownership. A total of 1344.91 acres of land was acquired by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, in different villages in Tehsil Rajpura for establishing of Military Ammunition Depot under the RAIP Act. On 27.2.1971, the then Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar, assessed the compensation for the land falling in village Bair Majra, Tehsil Rajpura. As per the assessment report, the total compensation payable to the petitioners/their predecessors comes to Rs.48,370.05 paise. The said amount was deposited by the Defence Estate Officer, Ministry of Defence in the year 1969 with the Special Land Acquisition Collector. However, the said amount was not disbursed to the petitioners because the naute of the land was Shamlat Deh in the column of ownership. Accordingly, the amount was deposited in the Treasury Office, Rajpura, vide Form-E, dated 4.5.1970 (R-3/1) On 10.8.1973, a notification was issued appointing the then Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, as an arbitrator under the RAIP Act for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner/their predecessors (R-3/2). 7. It has been submitted that the petitioners have earlier filed CWP No. 12042 of 1989 on the ground that they have not been paid compensation. On 22.3.1990, the said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with the direction that the petitioners should move the arbitrator where the proceeding for determination of compensation and apportionment were pending (R-3/3). On 24.3.1990 the petitioners submitted an application before the arbitrator and thereafter again filed CWP No. 1796 of 1992, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.2.1992 (R-3/4). They also filed COCP No. 124 of 2000 in CWP No. 12042 of 1989 against the then Military Estate Officer, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed on 2.2.2000 (R-3/5). It has been asserted that thereafter the petitioners did not take any steps to get a new arbitrator appointed or to revive the earlier arbitration proceedings. As such, the arbitrator never submitted any award in the case of the petitioners and arbitration proceedings lapsed. It has been asserted that thereafter the petitioners did not take any steps to get a new arbitrator appointed or to revive the earlier arbitration proceedings. As such, the arbitrator never submitted any award in the case of the petitioners and arbitration proceedings lapsed. In this manner, there was no determination of the compensation qua the land of the petitioners at the hands of the arbitrator. It is alleged that instead of disclosing these facts, the petitioners are relying on the award dated 13.5.1977 (P-2), claiming enhanced compensation, which pertains to the land of other co-owners. 8. It has further been stated that after issuance of direction by this Court in CWP No. 3737 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.9.2001 (P- 4), the matter was taken by respondent No. 3 with the Treasury Office. On 30.7.2002, the District Treasury Office, Patiala, informed that the payments of Central Government were discontinued to be paid from the Punjab Government Treasuries in 1976 and that all the Central Government payments are arranged by the Pay and Accounts Officer of the concerned department of the Central Government (R-3/6). After issuance of notice in COCP No. 382 of 2004 by this Court, the Defence Estate Officer, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 7.9.2005, requested respondent No. 3 to make the payment out of the amount lying undisbursed (R-3/7). Accordingly, payment was made to the petitioners on 22.9.2005 from some other account. It has been pointed out that till date the same has not been reimbursed to respondent No. 3 by the Department of Defence, Government of India. 9. It has further been asserted that there is no provision for payment of interest in the RAIP Act, therefore, the claim of the petitioners for the payment of interest on the compensation amount cannot be sustained. It has been denied that the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Parmal Singhs case (supra) is applicable in the present case because the amount of compensation had been deposited in the Treasury on 4.5.1970 by respondent No. 3 and no delay had been caused by it. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the paper book with their able assistance. The land belonging to the petitioners was requisitioned under the RAIP Act for establishing a Military Ammunition Depot, which was later on acquired in the year 1969. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the paper book with their able assistance. The land belonging to the petitioners was requisitioned under the RAIP Act for establishing a Military Ammunition Depot, which was later on acquired in the year 1969. Prior to acquisition of the land in question, possession thereof was taken from the petitioners in the year 1964-65 itself as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1966-76 (P-1) whereby the military has been shown as Maqbooja Gair Maurisi (possession without payment). It is conceded position that the amount of compensation has been disbursed to the petitioners only on 22.9.2005 that too after various rounds of litigation. Now, the only dispute which requires consideration is whether any interest is payable to the petitioners for the delayed payment of compensation of the requisitioned/acquired land, especially when there is no specific provision in the RAIP Act in that regard. The issue, in fact, is no longer res integra. The question posed above has already been answered by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Parmal Singh (Supra) on which reliance has rightly been placed by the petitioners. In paras 12 and 13 of the judgment, their Lordships of Honble the Supreme Court has noticed the main principles regarding payment of compensation and interest by observing as under:- "12. When a property is acquired, and law provides for payment of compensation to be determined in the manner specified, ordinarily compensation shall have to be paid at the time of taking possession in pursuance of acquisition. By applying equitable principles, courts have always awarded interest on the delayed payment of compensation in regard to acquisition of any property. When a requisitioned property is acquired, as possession had already been taken from the landholder, the compensation becomes payable from the date of acquisition. When a property is requisitioned, the land owner is compensated for the denial of possession by paying compensation based on the rent it would have fetched had it not been requisitioned But once the property is acquired, the rent is stopped, as compensation based on open market value becomes payable against acquisition. Therefore while interest is payable, it is not awarded from the date of requisition (taking over of possession) but only from the date of acquisition. This principle has been recognized and applied by courts consistently. 13. Therefore while interest is payable, it is not awarded from the date of requisition (taking over of possession) but only from the date of acquisition. This principle has been recognized and applied by courts consistently. 13. Whenever the arbitrator or High Court increases the compensation for the acquired land, the increase relates back to the date of acquisition as they are merely doing what the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have done in the first instance. Therefore, interest is awardable on the increased amount also from the date of acquisition. The said general principle will not apply in two circumstances. One is where a statute specifies or regulates the interest. In that event, interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute. The second is where a statute or contract dealing with the acquisition specifically bars or prohibits payment of interest on the compensation amount. In that event, interest will not be awarded. Where the statute is silent about interest, and there is no express bar about payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or enhanced compensation for acquisition would require award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. We are fortified in this view by the enunciation in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC 908, which has been reiterated in Hirachand Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Supp. SCC 17." 11. It is, thus, clear that where a statute or contract dealing with the acquisition specifically bars or prohibits payment of interest, the general principle i.e. interest is awardable on the increased amount from the date of acquisition, would not apply. But where the statute is silent about interest, and there is no express bar about payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or enhanced compensation for acquisition would require award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. 12. In view of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioners at the rate of 6% per annum for the delayed payment of amount of compensation from the date of acquisition of their land till the payment of compensation i.e. from 1.8.1969 to 22.9.2005. However, the right of the petitioners to seek appointment of an arbitrator shall remain protected and the instant petition shall not be a bar to file a fresh petition for the aforesaid purpose. However, the right of the petitioners to seek appointment of an arbitrator shall remain protected and the instant petition shall not be a bar to file a fresh petition for the aforesaid purpose. The inter se dispute between the Union of India and the State of Punjab whether the compensation has been received or not or whether the amount of interest is to be recovered from the Union of India or already paid has to be settled between themselves. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.