Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 177 (JK)

Babu Ram v. State of J&K

2021-04-19

PANKAJ MITHAL, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date it was payable to the petitioners i.e. the date of taking possession till its payment. 3. It appears from the pleadings that some land of the petitioners measuring 13 kanal and 13 marlas of khasra No. 1328 situate at village, Chowki Handan, District Rajouri was requisitioned under the provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). The compensation of the said land was assessed on 26.04.1991. The compensation was made available to the authorities on 24.05.1991 and the same was paid to the petitioners on 18.01.1999. The payment of the said compensation is clearly reflected by the certificate dated 11.03.2004 of the HQA to the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri which clearly states that an amount of Rs. 1,27,908/-as compensation was paid to each of the petitioners. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners were in dispute with third party regarding the title/entitlement of the compensation, the compensation admissible to the petitioners was liable to be deposited in court as contemplated by Rule 9(4) of the Rules but the respondents failed to deposit the same. He also argued that the money deposited in court was liable to be dealt with in accordance with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act which inter alia provides investment of the same in Government or other approved securities as may be considered proper. 5. In the objections filed by the respondents, the respondents have brought on record the order of the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu dated 02.12.1991 which directs that the compensation of the land under requisition shall not be disbursed till further orders of the court. 6. In view of the aforesaid order, it was not open for the respondents to have offered the compensation to the petitioners and when they were not supposed to distribute it, they could not have deposited the same in court. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid order, it was not open for the respondents to have offered the compensation to the petitioners and when they were not supposed to distribute it, they could not have deposited the same in court. 7. This apart, we find that the petitioners have received the compensation on 18.01.1999 and at that time they have not made any protest that they are entitled to interest as the amount was not deposited in court and invested in the Government security. The petitioners, who have received the compensation without any protest, are not entitled to seek interest on it that too after five years of receiving the compensation by filing the present writ petition. 8. The claim of the petitioners for interest and its denial is not a one which causes any injustice to the petitioners particularly when the petitioners have duly received the compensation of the land requisitioned. 9. It is well settled that every violation of law or illegality is not sufficient for the writ court to exercise its discretionary power until and unless there is miscarriage of justice. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that non payment of interest in either way results an injustice to the petitioners which may compel us to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretionary power and the writ petition is dismissed.