Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 467 (JHR)

Hari Ram Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-02-22

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Counsel for the petitioner is absent. 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, J.C.to S.C. (L&C) appears on behalf of respondent-state. 3. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to pay interest @ 15%till the date of payment, i.e. 02.09.2013 in terms of the judgment passed on 21.09.90 in L.A. Reference Case No. 01 of 1989 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Chas. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the order dated 05.12.2016 was passed by this Court, wherein the petitioner had submitted that though in para 1 of the writ petition the claim of enhanced rate of interest has been made up to 02.09. 2013, but the petitioner confined it till the date of the deposit in the learned Land Acquisition Court. The amount was deposited in Land Acquisition Court on 20.12.2003. The order dated 05.12.2016 passed by this Court in quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- As it appears from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the award dated 21.9.1990 in L.A. Reference Case No. 01 of 1989 was amended by order dated 20.7.2011 ( part of the enclosure to the supplementary affidavit) enhancing the rate of interest for the period post 24.3.1970 from 6% to 15% in tune with the judgment passed in the said L.A. Reference case. The amount awarded was deposited in the L.A. Court on 20.12.2003 calculated at the rate of 6% interest over and above the solatium. The first appeal preferred by the Respondent State before this Court has been dismissed on 6.12.2007. Pursuant to the amendment being allowed, petitioner is seeking the enhanced interest for the period 25.3.1970 till the date of its deposit in the L.A. Court i.e. 20.12.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in Para 1 of the writ petition the claim of enhanced rate has been made up to 2.9.2013 but petitioner seeks to confine it till the date of the deposit in the learned L.A. Court as permissible in law. Counter affidavit of the Respondent State, specifically at Para 16 and 17 on which they seek to rely, do not furnish a clear answer as to whether the enhanced interest awarded on amendment being allowed in the decree by the learned L.A. Court has been also paid or not. Counter affidavit of the Respondent State, specifically at Para 16 and 17 on which they seek to rely, do not furnish a clear answer as to whether the enhanced interest awarded on amendment being allowed in the decree by the learned L.A. Court has been also paid or not. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the Respondent State is allowed 3 weeks time to obtain categorical reply in that regard and file supplementary counter affidavit. List this case thereafter. 5. Vide order dated 05.12.2016 the counsel for the respondent state was granted 3 weeks'' time to file supplementary affidavit. 6. From the records of the case it appears that no supplementary-affidavit has been filed pursuant to order dated 05.12.2016. 7. However, counsel for the respondents submits that the interest @ 6% has already been deposited and the petitioner has withdrawn the said amount, but the balance amount @ 9% has not been paid by the respondents. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the award itself was modified which remained unchallenged, the respondent no. 2 is directed to make payment to the petitioner as per the award dated 21.09.1990 read with amended order dated 20.07.2011 after deducting the amount already paid. The remaining amount is directed to be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.