Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 798 (GAU)

Uday Kumar Das v. State of Assam and Ors.

2013-11-12

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2013
Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum for delayed payment of compensation for illegal eviction. 3. Basic facts are not in dispute. Therefore, a detailed factual narration is considered not necessary. Suffice it to say that on 21.5.2002, officials of the Forest Department, Government of Assam carried out an eviction operation in the Modghoria area of Guwahati city on the ground that there was encroachment in the Hengrabari Reserve Forest. In the eviction operation, the Assam type house constructed by the petitioner comprising of 9 rooms where he stayed with his family since 1997-98 was demolished. 4. Petitioner along with others approached this court against the eviction operation by filing WP(C) No. 4034/2002. This court by the judgment and order dated 10.5.2004 allowed the writ petition. It was held by this Court that the land from where the petitioner was evicted is beyond the Hengrabari Reserve Forest and eviction of the petitioner was declared as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law. This court also held that the land in possession of the petitioner is his patta land. It was therefore held that the impugned eviction operation had violated petitioner's rights under article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Insofar payment of compensation for loss suffered was concerned, this court left it open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority to take a decision in accordance with law. 6. Petitioner then filed an application before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department seeking compensation of Rs. 11,29,600 with interest for loss and damage of property, including household belongings. 7. Government of Assam in the Environment and Forest Department took a decision to pay the above sum of Rs. 11,29,600.00 as compensation for the illegal eviction and demolition of the house of the petitioner. This was communicated to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam on 12.05.2005. Sanction for payment of the said amount was made on 08.07,2005, which had the concurrence of the Finance Department. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was directed to ensure early payment of compensation to avoid, any legal complicacy in future. 8. This was communicated to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam on 12.05.2005. Sanction for payment of the said amount was made on 08.07,2005, which had the concurrence of the Finance Department. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was directed to ensure early payment of compensation to avoid, any legal complicacy in future. 8. It appears that there was a sudden change in the decision of the Government regarding payment of compensation to the petitioner which ultimately led to issuance of letter dated 4.1.2006 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department and addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It was stated that there was no justification to pay compensation to the petitioner and, therefore, such payment was kept in abeyance. 9. Petitioner had to approach this court again by filing WP(C) No. 357/2006. A Single Bench of this court by judgment and order dated 18.3.2008 allowed the writ petition by quashing the above letter dated 4.1.2006. Consequently, it was clarified that necessary steps should be taken by the State respondents for payment of compensation within three months. 10. The aforesaid order was put to challenge by the State by filing Writ Appeal No. 156/2008. By order dated 10.6.2008, a Division Bench of this court admitted the appeal and stayed the order dated 18.3.2008 subject to payment of Rs.6,00,000 to the petitioner. There was delay in payment of the aforesaid amount which compelled the petitioner to file a miscellaneous application whereafter the court passed order dated 13.8.2008 directing the State respondents to comply with the earlier order for payment of Rs.6,00,000 within failing which it was clarified that interim order passed earlier would stand vacated. 11. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000.00 was paid to the petitioner. 12. By the final order dated 28.4.2009, a Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the State. It was held as under : "13. Based on the materials supplied by the petitioner and the verification thereof made by the authorities of the State Government including its own opinion and reports, etc., the aforesaid amount was assessed to be adequate compensation payable to the petitioner. However, suddenly a decision was taken to keep the matter in abeyance till the time the petitioner would provide other documents. During the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury, Addl. However, suddenly a decision was taken to keep the matter in abeyance till the time the petitioner would provide other documents. During the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury, Addl. Advocate General submitted that since the petitioner could not provide any documents relating to his title over the land, the matter was kept in abeyance. 14. As indicated above, the status of the land occupied by the petitioner was not decisive of compensation payable to him. Once it was held that the land is not forest land and the petitioner.was wrongly evicted from the land and his house standing thereon was wrongly demolished, all that was required of the State respondents was to assess the extent of damage caused to the property of the petitioner and to pay compensation on that basis. The said exercise was duly carried out by the appellants and the amount was ready to be paid. It was at that stage, suddenly a decision was taken to keep the matter in abeyance asking the petitioner to produce more documents not relating to the issue involved." 13. Though petitioner submitted application before the respondents thereafter for payment of the balance amount of compensation of Rs. 5,29,600.00 the same was not paid. Petitioner also submitted an application dated 7.5.2009 before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of compensation determined. As the balance amount of compensation was not paid along with interest, the present writ petition was filed. 14. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that the Government had sanctioned payment of compensation of Rs. 11,29,600 to the petitioner. After paying an amount of Rs. 6,00,000 at the first instance, the balance amount of compensation of Rs.5,29,600 was paid to the petitioner on 29.12.2009. Allegation of delay in paying the compensation has been denied. Respondent No. 4 in his separate affidavit has contested the claim of the petitioner to compensation. Delay in paying compensation has also been denied. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is now not open to the respondents to contend that petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Moreover, once decision was taken by the Government to award compensation to the petitioner for his illegal and unconstitutional eviction, there was no justification in delaying payment of the same. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is now not open to the respondents to contend that petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Moreover, once decision was taken by the Government to award compensation to the petitioner for his illegal and unconstitutional eviction, there was no justification in delaying payment of the same. When this court by order dated 18.3.2008 had quashed the decision to keep in abeyance the compensation amount payable to the petitioner, the respondents were duty bound to pay the compensation within the period of three months as was directed by this court. After expiry of the said period of three months, the petitioner was required to be compensated by way of payment of compensation with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a number of decisions to support his submissions, which shall be taken note of in the later part of the judgment. 16. Opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhagawati, learned State Counsel submits that the respondents had availed the legal remedy of filing writ appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge and in the appeal, the Division Bench had stayed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 3.2008 subject to payment of Rs. 6,00,000, though there was some delay in releasing such payment. He further submits that when the writ appeal was dismissed on 28.4.2009, the balance amount was paid thereafter without much delay on 29.10.2009. As such, no case for payment of interest on delayed compensation has been made out by the petitioner. Writ petition should therefore be dismissed, he submits. 17. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also perused the documents placed on record. 18. As noticed above, the basic facts are not disputed. It is not disputed that petitioner's house standing on his own land was demolished in an illegal eviction carried out on 21.5.2002. As noticed by the Division Bench, compensation payable to the petitioner was assessed by the respondents themselves on the basis of the materials supplied by the petitioner which were subjected to verification and scrutiny. It is not disputed that petitioner's house standing on his own land was demolished in an illegal eviction carried out on 21.5.2002. As noticed by the Division Bench, compensation payable to the petitioner was assessed by the respondents themselves on the basis of the materials supplied by the petitioner which were subjected to verification and scrutiny. Once it was held that the petitioner was illegally evicted and his house was wrongfully demolished, having regard to the constitutional scheme and the rule of law that governs the country, there would be no escape from payment of compensation to the aggrieved party so as to compensate him for the loss that he suffered. 19. As already noticed, respondents had assessed the quantum of compensation to be paid to the petitioner at Rs. 11,29,600. Though a sudden decision was taken to keep in abeyance payment of compensation to the petitioner which manifested in the letter dated 4.1.2006, the same was interfered with by this court and was quashed by order dated 18.3.2008 passed in WP(C) No.357/2006. This court clarified that the compensation determined should be paid within three months. 20. In S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 44 , which was a case relating to delayed payment of retiral benefits, the Apex Court held that even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution of India for delayed payment of retiral benefits by placing reliance on articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 21. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Justice S. S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 240 held that once it is established that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the court. In that case, the Apex Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court directing payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance of the gratuity amount, payment of which was delayed by almost a year. 22. On the issue of awarding interest for delayed payment of compensation, the Apex Court in the case of Kalimpong Land & Building Ltd. And Anr. 22. On the issue of awarding interest for delayed payment of compensation, the Apex Court in the case of Kalimpong Land & Building Ltd. And Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 720 explained that payment of interest is to make good the loss suffered by the person on delayed payment of the compensation. 23. A Single Bench of this court in Lohit Chandra Kalita v. State of Assam and Ors., 2000 (1) GLT 203 held that if Government is responsible for delay, necessarily the appellant would be entitled to the payment of interest on the delayed payment. 24. In the present case also it is seen from the Government communication dated 16.1.2010 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Annexure 13 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner on 8.3.2010) that the Finance Department had taken a serious view to the non-disbursement of the balance amount of compensation to the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was therefore requested to furnish the details for taking necessary action against the defaulting officers for in-ordinate delay in payment of compensation. Therefore, there is admission by the State itself that there was delay in payment of compensation. 25. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, this court is of the unhesitant view that there was delay in payment of compensation and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the award of interest for delayed payment of compensation, which would meet the ends of justice. That being the position, respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.11,29,600.00 w.e.f. 4.1.2006 when the decision was taken to withhold payment of compensation till payment of Rs. 6,00,000 at the first instance as well as till the final balance payment was made on 29.12.2009. The interest amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 27. However, there shall be no order as to cost.