Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 364 (GAU)

Laichhingi v. North East Frontier Railway

2022-04-05

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Ali Hussain, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen Prakash, Deputy Chief Engineer, North East Frontier Railway (respondent No. 5), and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition briefly stated are as follows: For the construction of the Railway line between Bairabi to Sairang by the North East Frontier Railway, the land of the petitioners under Periodic Pattas situated within the Kawnpui Village Council area were affected. However, by an Award No. 1 of 2012 (Part-B Kawnpui) issued by the District Collector, Kolasib, they were awarded compensation only for the value of their crops. Being aggrieved by the non-payment of compensation for their lands, the petitioners submitted a Reference Application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the District Collector, Kolasib, claiming compensation for the market value of their lands. The same was referred to the competent Civil Court, i.e., the Additional District Judge – II, Aizawl, and the case was registered as L.A. Case No. 30 of 2013. The competent Civil Court, vide its Order dated 05.12.2013, disposed the Reference Case by awarding only solatium and interest for the crops. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the Review Petition No. 25 of 2014 but the same was dismissed vide the Order dated 06.05.2016. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners came before this Court by filing C.R.P No. 4 of 2017. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that there is an alternative remedy by way of an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the R.F.A. No. 10 of 2017 before this Court. The same was disposed off vide Order dated 10.10.2017, wherein and whereby, the Judgment and Award dated 05.12.2013 passed by the competent Civil Court in L.A. Case No. 30 of 2013 was quashed and set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh hearing and consideration. The case was disposed off by a Judgment and Award dated 03.08.2018 wherein it was directed that compensation for their lands be awarded to the petitioners at the market value of Rs. 38 per sq.ft. (Rupees Thirty Eight Per Square Feet), along with statutory benefits. The case was disposed off by a Judgment and Award dated 03.08.2018 wherein it was directed that compensation for their lands be awarded to the petitioners at the market value of Rs. 38 per sq.ft. (Rupees Thirty Eight Per Square Feet), along with statutory benefits. Since no assessment was made and no compensation was also awarded as per the direction of the Reference Court, the petitioners filed the Execution Case No. 4 of 2018 before the Court concerned. The Court vide Order dated 11.10.2018 issued notice to the respondents and thereafter, by two consecutive orders, i.e., Order dated 06.02.2019 and 27.03.2019, the respondents were reminded to comply with the Order passed earlier. 4. Pursuant to the orders passed by the competent Civil Court, the District Collector, Kolasib, made an assessment of compensation to be paid for the lands of the petitioners, which amounted to Rs. 11,90,43,661/- (Rupees One Crore, Nineteen Lakhs, Forty Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty One), which is inclusive of interest @9% from the date of possession for a period of one year and, thereafter @15% per year till the date the assessment of the compensation along with the interest was made by the Collector i.e., on 23.04.2019. And the same was conveyed by the District Collector, Kolasib to the Deputy Chief Engineer/CON/Bairabi, Silchar, North East Frontier Railway vide letter Execution Case No. 4/2018 (L.A. Case 30/ 2013)-DC(K)/51 dated 23.04.2019, requesting him, at the same time, to deposit the amount in the Execution Court. Since the amount was not deposited inspite of the Order, the Executing Court vide, Order dated 17.09.2020, passed in CMA No. 2/2020 (arising out of Execution Case No. 4 of 2018), directed the North East Frontier Railway to refrain from doing any construction work of railway line in between tunnel Nos. 6 & 8 until further order. 5. Following the direction given in the Order mentioned above, the North East Frontier Railway filed an appeal before this Court challenging the Judgment and Award dated 03.08.2018 passed in L.A. Case No. 30 of 2013 by the competent Civil Court. The appeal was registered as RFA No. 15 of 2020. 6 & 8 until further order. 5. Following the direction given in the Order mentioned above, the North East Frontier Railway filed an appeal before this Court challenging the Judgment and Award dated 03.08.2018 passed in L.A. Case No. 30 of 2013 by the competent Civil Court. The appeal was registered as RFA No. 15 of 2020. After hearing the parties, this Court, vide Order dated 30.10.2020, dismissed the appeal and directed North East Frontier Railway to pay the compensation amount expeditiously in terms of the Judgment and Award dated 03.08.2018, passed by the competent Civil Court in L.A. Case No. 30 of 2013. While dismissing the appeal, this Court also directed the Executing Court to pass appropriate Order allowing the North East Frontier Railway to continue the construction work between the tunnel Nos. 6 & 8. 6. Even thereafter, the North East Frontier Railway did not pay the compensation, therefore, the petitioners filed the Contempt Case No. 1 of 2021 before this Court. During the pendency of the Contempt Case, the compensation amount along with interest @ 9% for the first year starting from the date possession of the land was taken and, thereafter @15% per year till 23.04.2019, i.e., the date on which the assessment was made, were deposited by the respondent No. 5 in the account of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib, and on 13.03.2021 was intimated to him, vide Order No. W/207/CON/B-S/SCL/LA30 of 2013/1113 dated 13.03.2021. The Contempt Case was accordingly closed by this Court vide Order dated 16.03.2021. 7. The petitioners are here once again before this Court, by filing the instant Writ Petition for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction, directing that the respondents should pay statutory interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since their representation submitted to the North East Frontier Railway requesting for payment of interest under the same section was not considered. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the respondents have paid interest as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as awarded by the Reference Court/Competent Civil Court, the respondents i.e., the North East Frontier Railway are liable to pay interest @9% from the date of taking of possession of the land of the petitioners by the respondents for the first year and thereafter @15% till final payment is made as per the mandatory provision of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. 9. In support of his submission that, besides the payment of interest under section 28, the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest under section 34 of the same Act, learned counsel, Mr. Khiangte referred to para 44 and 45 of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2545-2546/2012, Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Reportable). The learned counsel also referred to para 5 to 7 of the Order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C)/56/2019. Further, the learned counsel referred to para 7 to 11 of the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C)/88/2021. Thereafter, the learned counsel also referred to the Order dated 13.08.2021, which was passed by this Court, in WP(C)/34/2021. In addition, the learned counsel referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court, i.e., paragraph 14 & 15 in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262 , and para 41 & 42 of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 1622-1631 of 2018, arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4689-4698 of 2012 (Reportable). The contents of the relevant paragraphs of the judgments, referred to by the learned counsel of the petitioners, are reproduced here below, one after the other. “Civil Appeal Nos. 2545-2546/2012 Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Reportable) 44. Section 28 empowers the courts, if it was enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector, to award interest on the sum in excess of what the Collector had awarded as compensation. “Civil Appeal Nos. 2545-2546/2012 Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Reportable) 44. Section 28 empowers the courts, if it was enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector, to award interest on the sum in excess of what the Collector had awarded as compensation. Both in terms of Section 34 and Section 28, interest at 9% per annum is payable for the first year of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter, if the amount of compensation was not paid or deposited within a period of one year or deposited thereafter. 45. Award of interest under Section 34 is mandatory in as much the word used in the Section is ‘shall’. The scheme of the Act and the express provisions thereof establish that the interest payable under Section 34 is statutory. The claim for interest under Section 28 of the Act proceeds on the basis that due compensation not having been paid, the claimant should be allowed interest on the enhanced compensation amount. The award of interest under Section 28 is discretionary power vested in the Court and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. The use of the word “may” in Section 28 does not confer any arbitrary discretion on the Court to disallow interest for no valid or proper reasons. Normally, Court awards interest if it enhances the compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, unless there are exceptional circumstances. WP(C)/56/2019 5. Section 34 of the L.A. Act provides that when the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the expiry. From the affidavit filed by the State respondents it can be well seen that the respondent Union of India deposited the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners alongwith solatium only on 03.04.2019, while the construction of the road was undertaken in the year 2014. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the petitioners did not receive compensation, before taking over the possession of their lands. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. (Supra) held that the claim for land compensation will be entitled to claim statutory right at any stage without even filing cross objections to the appeal filed by the State. In the case of Sunder (supra), the Apex Court also held that the question of payment of interest will arise only when the compensation is not paid and deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. It further held that it is for the purpose of affording relief to the person, who is entitled to such compensation that interest becomes payable under section 34 of the L.A. Act when there is delay in making any payment of the compensation. As already noticed, the petitioners admittedly were not given compensation prior to taking over of their land for construction of their land. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Collector, Siaha District, Siaha (respondent No. 7), to calculate the interest payable to the petitioners in terms of section 34 of the L.A. Act, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon making such calculation, the Collector shall forward the same to the respondent Union of India concerned for necessary sanction of the fund. The respondent Union of India shall, within 8(eight) weeks of receipt of the amount assessed by the District Collector, complete the formalities of according sanction of the fund and deposit the same before the District Collector for disbursement. On receipt of the amount, the District Collector shall forthwith disburse the amount to the petitioners without delay. WP(C)/88/2021 …3. Although the case has a checkered history, only bare essential for consideration and disposal of the writ petition is being mentioned. On receipt of the amount, the District Collector shall forthwith disburse the amount to the petitioners without delay. WP(C)/88/2021 …3. Although the case has a checkered history, only bare essential for consideration and disposal of the writ petition is being mentioned. The petitioners by filing this writ petition has partly challenged the Order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure 16) passed by the District Collector, Kolasib in awarding them interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the extent and manner in which the calculation was made. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the proviso to Section 34 of the LA Act, the petitioners are entitled to 15% interest from the date of expiry of one year when the compensation amount was not paid to them till final payment. However, the District Collector has calculated the interest entirely @9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land up till the final payment. He also submits that the amount already assessed by the District Collector was deposited by the NF Railways and paid to the petitioners. However, since the petitioners are entitled to further interest as per the proviso to Section 34 of the LA Act, Court may pass appropriate direction in this regard. 4. Mr. Ali Hussain, the learned Standing Counsel, NF Railways on the other hand submits that the District Collector has rightly assessed the interest payable to the petitioners under Section 34 of the LA Act. He submits that the NF Railways had merely encroached upon the land of the petitioners and the same cannot be come as taking possession of the land of the petitioners. For having encroached the land, the NF Railways has decided to acquire the land of the petitioners and therefore, the compensation amount as due to the petitioners having already been assessed and paid to them, the petitioners are not entitled to any further compensation. He therefore submits that the writ petition being without merit should be dismissed. 5. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the affidavit of the State respondents is ready to be filed and an advance copy of the same has been served to the learned counsels for the opposite parties. He therefore submits that the writ petition being without merit should be dismissed. 5. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the affidavit of the State respondents is ready to be filed and an advance copy of the same has been served to the learned counsels for the opposite parties. Referring to the affidavit, the learned Government Advocate submits that there can be no possible way of making payment at the time of taking possession of the land as the Award itself i.e. Supplementary Award was only made in the year 2019. Payment for the said Supplementary Award was made in February, 2020 vide Demand Draft No. 671934 dated 12.02.2020. Therefore, as payment of the said Award was made within one year from the date of approval given by the Government of Mizoram, there is no delay in making payment. As such, the question of paying further interest to the petitioners does not arise. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and also the affidavit prepared by the State respondents. 7. In order to appreciate Section 34 of the LA Act, the same is reproduced hereunder:- “34. Payment of interest.-When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: [Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.]” 8. From the above abstract, it may be seen that when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, the Collector is required to make an assessment of the interest payable to the land owners @9% per annum from the time of taking possession of the land till the payment is made or the amount deposited. Further, the proviso to Section 34 provides that if the compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date of possession, the interest amount payable would be @ 15%per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the amount or part thereof is finally paid or deposited. 9. Now coming to the order passed by the District Collector, it may be seen that there is no dispute to the fact that 08.05.2015 is the date of taking possession of the land in question and 12.02.2020 is the date on which payment of the compensation has been made. The District Collector however was of the view that since approval of the Supplementary Award was given by the State Government in the Revenue Department on 08.07.2019 and that the deposit and payment of the compensation amount was made within one year from that date, the petitioners will therefore be not entitled to interest @ 15% in terms of the proviso of Section 34 of the LA Act. As such interest was awarded @ 9% from the date of possession of the land till final payment of the Award i.e. 12.02.2020. However, having regard to Section 34 of the LA Act and the proviso provided therein, when there is no dispute with regard to the date of taking of possession and also the date on which the amount awarded was deposited or paid, the said provision cannot be ignored. Admittedly, compensation amount was not deposited or paid within a period of one year from the date when possession was taken over the land i.e. 08.05.2015. Therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to be paid interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 09.05.2016 upto 12.02.2020. Although, Mr. Ali Hussain, the learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway has tried to convince the Court that possession was not taken over the land of the petitioners and that it was only encroachment, the same in my considered view cannot be accepted. There is no dispute to the fact that it was due to the erection of pillars within the land of the petitioners that the NF Railway was ultimately led to acquire the land of the petitioners. Moreover, they have not disputed the date on which the possession of land was taken as reflected in the order of the Collector dated 11.12.2020. Moreover, they have not disputed the date on which the possession of land was taken as reflected in the order of the Collector dated 11.12.2020. The NF Railways have not only not disputed the date of taking possession of land and the interest awarded to the petitioners but they have in fact satisfied the Award as can be seen from the Communication dated 20.08.2021 annexed at Annexure 15 to the writ petition. 10. As regard to the stand taken by the State respondents, it may be seen that although the original Award was passed in the year 2012 and the Supplementary Award later on in the year 2019, no distinction can be drawn between the two inasmuch as the land of the petitioners were affected even as the Award of 2012 was passed which led them to filing of series of litigations before this Court. There is also nothing in the provision of the LA Act which says that the land owners who have subsequently been awarded under a Supplementary Award and not under the original Award will be only entitled to a certain amount of interest. Therefore, this Court finds the stand of the State respondents to be unacceptable. 11. Thus, upon due consideration of the materials available on record and the provisions of the LA Act, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Order dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure 16) is interfered with to the extent that the District Collector shall now make an assessment for the interest amount payable to the petitioners @15% per annum w.e.f. 09.05.2016 upto 12.02.2020 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The interest amount already calculated and paid be adjusted as may be required. Once the assessment is ready, the same shall be forwarded to the NF Railways who shall within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the assessment deposit the assessed amount before the District Collector, Kolasib. The District Collector upon receiving the assessed amount shall disburse the same to the petitioner without delay. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 13. The affidavit of the State respondents which has been taken into consideration hereinabove shall be filed by the learned Government Advocate by 28.03.2022. The District Collector upon receiving the assessed amount shall disburse the same to the petitioner without delay. 12. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 13. The affidavit of the State respondents which has been taken into consideration hereinabove shall be filed by the learned Government Advocate by 28.03.2022. WP(C)/34/2021 …Brief facts of the case is that the 8 (eight) petitioners are the owners of their respective lands situated in Bairabi, under Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) issued to them by the competent authority. It is their case that the respondents have acquired a vase plot of land in Bairabi for construction of railway line. The land of the petitioners have also been acquired for the said purpose under Draft Award No. 1/2012 (Part-A-Bairabi) passed by the District Collector, Kolasib. Some of the land owners, who were not satisfied with the award, filed a reference application before the Collector and which was ultimately adjudicated by the L.A. Judge and the parties concerned were given enhanced compensation. Although the petitioner did not approach the Collector with a reference application but they claim that they are entitled to similar benefits in terms of section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). The petitioners therefore approached the Collector with their application and the Collector accordingly made and assessment for enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,59,73,495/-. Despite the assessment, the amount was not paid by the NF Railway and therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the petitioners, today, submits that the amount of enhanced compensation assessed by the District Collector has now been paid to the petitioners in the month of July, 2021. To substantiate his submission, he has produced a copy of the Communication dated 22.07.2021 written by the Dy. Chief Engineer, NF Railway, Silchar to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, which indicates that the assessed amount of enhanced compensation has been deposited with the D.C. Kolasib District, Mizoram against the Bank account concerned in the Mizoram Rural Bank, Kolasib, Mizoram. The learned counsel, however, submits that the NF Railway having taken possession of their lands on 03.04.2013, the petitioners are entitled to interest on the awarded amount from the date of taking possession of their lands till final payment of the enhanced award in terms of section 34 of the L.A. Act. The learned counsel, however, submits that the NF Railway having taken possession of their lands on 03.04.2013, the petitioners are entitled to interest on the awarded amount from the date of taking possession of their lands till final payment of the enhanced award in terms of section 34 of the L.A. Act. Therefore, the District Collector may be directed to make the assessment and the NF Railway also directed to pay the assessed amount of interest to the petitioners. The learned counsel, in this connection, has relied upon the Order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Court in a similar case i.e. WP(C) No. 56/2019 (Sh. Rahnel & 14 Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) Considering the above submission and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Collector, Kolasib District to make an assessment on the interest payable to the petitioners in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act, after making necessary verification about the precise date on which possession was taken over by the NF Railway from the land owner. The District Collector shall complete the exercise within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and upon completion for the assessment, the same should be forwarded to the NF Railway authorities for arranging the fund. The NF Railway authorities shall, within 8(eight) weeks of receipt of the assessment made by the District Collector, deposit the assessed amount before the District Collector, Kolasib and the same shall be disburse to the land owners after observing the required formalities and without any further delay. A copy of the Communication dated 22.07.2021 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners shall be retained in the record and marked as Annexure ‘X’ for identification. (1991) 1 SCC 262 Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat 14. The High court while appreciating the point in issue did not consider the mandatory provisions of Section 34 of the Act. The said section specifically provides that when the amount of compensation is not paid on or before taking possession for the land the Collector shall pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of taking over possession. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by the person whose land has been acquired. The said section specifically provides that when the amount of compensation is not paid on or before taking possession for the land the Collector shall pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of taking over possession. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by the person whose land has been acquired. There can be no controversy or any lis between the parties regarding payment of interest. When once the provision of Section 34 are attracted it is obligatory for the Collector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the Court in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act or even from the Appellate court/Courts thereafter. 15. We have carefully examined the reasoning of the High Court in reaching the conclusion which we have reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. We do not agree with the interpretation placed by the High court on various provisions of the act. Reading section 23 with section 26 of the Act it is clear that the award, which is deemed to be a decree, is the sum total of conclusions reached by the Courts in determining compensation under section 2’11 of the Act on appreciation of the evidence between the parties. The costs tinder section 27 and the interest under section 28 and 34 are added to the compensation amount to make it a consolidated award. The costs and interests under the Act if not awarded by the lower Court can always be awarded by higher Courts in any proceedings under the Act and to any party entitled to the same under the act. There is inherent evidence in the wording of sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that “the Collector shall pay the ‘amount awarded with interest at 6% per annum’…” The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the Collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section ’34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award decree as prepared under section 23 (1) read with section 26 of the act. It is a directive to the Collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section ’34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award decree as prepared under section 23 (1) read with section 26 of the act. Similarly section 28 provides “the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest”. Here also the award under section 23(1) read with section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest is to be paid under section 34 and also under section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under section 23(1) of the Act. Whereas, the interest, if payable under the Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the Act, the amount of compensation under section 23(1) which is an Award- Decree under section 26, subject to the rules of procedure and limitation. The rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come in the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act. Civil Appeal No. 1622-1631 of 2018 [arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4689-4698 of 2012] (Reportable) 41. This Court explained the object and scope of Sections 28 and 34 succinctly in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262 in the following words: “16. There is inherent evidence in the wording of Sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that “the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest at 6 per cent per annum….” The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award-decree as prepared under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 of the Act. Similarly Section 28 provides “the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest”. Here also the award under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. Similarly Section 28 provides “the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest”. Here also the award under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest to be paid under Section 34 and also under Section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under Section 23(1) of the Act. Whereas the interest, if payable under the Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the Act, the amount of compensation under Section 23(1) which is an award-decree under Section 26, is subject to the rules of Procedure and Limitation. The rules of procedure are hand-maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come in the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act.” 42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the dispute in relation to non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in writ petition. In other words, reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court.” 9. Having referred to the judgments given above, learned counsel, Mr. Khiangte also submitted that while interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is discretionary of the Reference Court, the interest under section 34 as provided under the same Act is mandatory. Therefore, the same cannot be denied. 10. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned standing counsel assisted by Deputy Chief Engineer, North East Frontier Railway, Mr. Naveen Prakash, submitted that at the initial stage the land of the petitioners was given zero or nil value by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner concerned and only after this Court directed for reassessment by the Reference Court/competent Civil Court, the land of the petitioners were given values @Rs. 38 per sq.ft. (Rupees Thirty Eight Per Square Feet). Naveen Prakash, submitted that at the initial stage the land of the petitioners was given zero or nil value by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner concerned and only after this Court directed for reassessment by the Reference Court/competent Civil Court, the land of the petitioners were given values @Rs. 38 per sq.ft. (Rupees Thirty Eight Per Square Feet). Only thereafter, the assessment of the compensation to be paid to the petitioners were made by the District Collector, Kolasib, and as per the assessment, the compensation was paid with interest @9% for the period of one year from the date their lands were taken possession of and thereafter @15% per year till the date of assessment. The learned counsel also submitted that, actually, there was no enhancement of compensation amount to be paid to the petitioners in this case. Hence the question of paying two interests under two provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, i.e., section 28 and 34 does not arise. It is also submitted that, the interest rate under the two provisions of the Act is same and as per the rate provided in the two sections, interest has been worked out and paid. In support of his submission, the learned counsel, Mr. Ali Hussain also referred to para 42 to 49 of the same Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2545-2546 of 2012 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Reportable). Some of the contents of the Judgment have been already reproduced as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, since the learned counsel has referred to more paragraphs of the same Judgment they are reproduced here below once again even at the cost of repetition. “42. INTEREST: Contention of the appellants is that on the enhanced compensation, the mandatory interest under Section 34 of the Act has not been awarded to them. Placing reliance upon Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 8 SCC 412 , it is contended that the impugned judgment is silent on granting statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and the appellants pray for award of interest on the enhanced compensation. Placing reliance upon Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 8 SCC 412 , it is contended that the impugned judgment is silent on granting statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and the appellants pray for award of interest on the enhanced compensation. The appellants filed C.M. No.735/2011 before the High Court seeking review for payment of interest which according to the appellants was omitted to be included and the said application was dismissed by the High Court. 43. Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides for payment of interest to the claimants either under Section 34 or under Section 28 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act fastens liability on the Collector to pay interest on the amount of compensation to be worked out in accordance with provisions of Section 23(1) and the sub-section thereof, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession until the amount is paid or deposited. As per proviso to Section 34, if the compensation amount or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date of taking over possession, interest shall be payable at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. 44. Section 28 empowers the courts, if it was enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector, to award interest on the sum in excess of what the Collector had awarded as compensation. Both in terms of Section 34 and Section 28, interest at 9% per annum is payable for the first year of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter, if the amount of compensation was not paid or deposited within a period of one year or deposited thereafter. 45. Award of interest under Section 34 is mandatory in as much the word used in the Section is ‘shall’. The scheme of the Act and the express provisions thereof establish that the interest payable under Section 34 is statutory. The claim for interest under Section 28 of the Act proceeds on the basis that due compensation not having been paid, the claimant should be allowed interest on the enhanced compensation amount. The scheme of the Act and the express provisions thereof establish that the interest payable under Section 34 is statutory. The claim for interest under Section 28 of the Act proceeds on the basis that due compensation not having been paid, the claimant should be allowed interest on the enhanced compensation amount. The award of interest under Section 28 is discretionary power vested in the Court and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. The use of the word “may” in Section 28 does not confer any arbitrary discretion on the Court to disallow interest for no valid or proper reasons. Normally, Court awards interest if it enhances the compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, unless there are exceptional circumstances. 46. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457, considering the scope of Section 34 and Section 28 of the Act, has held as under:- “44. Section 34 of the Act fastens liability on the Collector to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) with interest from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit into the court to which reference under Section 18 would be made. On determination of the excess amount of compensation, Section 28 empowers the court, if it was enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector, to award interest on the sum in excess of what the Collector had awarded as compensation. The award of the court may also direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess or part thereof from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court at the rates specified thereunder. The Court stated: [Prem Nath Kapur vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 71 , SCC p. 77, para 10] “In other words, Sections 34 and 28 fasten the liability on the State to pay interest on the amount of compensation or on excess compensation under Section 28 from the date of the award and decree but the liability to pay interest on the excess amount of compensation determined by the Court relates back to the date of taking possession of the land to the date of the payment of such excess ‘into the court’.” 45. The Court concluded: (Prem Nath Kapur case, SCC p. 78, para 12) “12. It is clear from the scheme of the Act and the express language used in Sections 23(1) and (2), 34 and 28 and now Section 23(1-A) of the Act that each component is a distinct and separate one. When compensation is determined under Section 23(1), its quantification, though made at different levels, the liability to pay interest thereon arises from the date on which the quantification was so made but, as stated earlier, it relates back to the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit of interest on such excess compensation into the court. … The liability to pay interest is only on the excess amount of [pic]compensation determined under Section 23(1) and not on the amount already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 and paid to the party or deposited into the court or determined under Section 26 or Section 54 and deposited into the court or on solatium under Section 23(2) and additional amount under Section 23(1-A).” 47. In the scheme of the Act, considering the different stages at which interest is payable on the compensation amount/enhanced compensation, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh’s case further held as under:- “32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed. Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by Section 23(1), Section 23(1- A), Section 23(2) and the interest contemplated by Section 34 of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the Collector in terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in deposit is contemplated, since the Collector has to pay or deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may have to be made up at that stage and the principle of appropriation may apply, though it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that stage. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without protest. 33. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without protest. 33. The second stage occurs on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. The Collector has the duty to deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made under and after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of the enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that stage, in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference. 34. The third stage occurs, when in appeal, the High Court enhances the compensation as indicated already. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, when Section 28 is applied. The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in addition to the amount awarded by the Reference Court if it had not already been deposited. 35. The fourth stage may be when the Supreme Court enhances the compensation and at that stage too, the same rule would apply.” 48. By going through the judgment of reference court as well as the High Court, we find that the appellants were awarded interest in terms of Section 34 and Section 28 of the Act. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 19.02.1997. The reference court has not enhanced the compensation amount; but has only confirmed the award passed by the Collector. However, while dismissing the reference, reference court held that the appellant shall be entitled to get interest in terms of the provisions of the Act for the period from 19.02.1997 till the date of payment, meaning thereby that the statutory interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act is payable. 49. When the High Court enhanced the compensation, the High Court held that the appellants shall be paid interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act. 49. When the High Court enhanced the compensation, the High Court held that the appellants shall be paid interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act. On the enhanced compensation, High Court ordered payment of interest at the rate of 9% from 19.02.1997 to 18.2.1998 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court reads as under:- “On the enhanced market value, the appellant shall be paid interest under Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum from 19.02.1997, the date of issuance of Section 4 notification for the first year ending on 18.02.1998 and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till the date of tender of compensation. Interest shall also be paid on the solatium and the additional amount in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. UOI reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 (SC).” Since the statutory interest under Section 34 and also the interest in terms of Section 28 of Act had been awarded to the appellants, we find no merit in the grievance of the appellants as to the payment of interest.” 11. Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows: “28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. - If the sum, which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court: [Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date or expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.] 34. Payment of interest - When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: [Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date or expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.]” The legislative intent is evident from the contents of the two sections, which are clear and without any ambiguity. Payment of the interest contemplated under section 34 will arise when the compensation assessed and awarded by the Collector is not paid and the same will start accruing from the date of possession of the land acquired and will continue till the date the compensation is paid. As for the interest to be paid under section 28, the same would arise only when the land-owner is not satisfied with the assessment and compensation awarded by the Collector, and approaches the Reference Court for enhancement of the same, and the Reference Court enhances the compensation earlier awarded by the Collector. The interest under this section is payable only for the enhanced amount and it would also be paid from the date of possession of the land till the date the whole assessed award amount is paid. In the instant case, admittedly, when the Collector concerned assessed the lands of the petitioners, no value, whatsoever, was given, therefore, no compensation was awarded. It was only when the Collector reassessed the lands in pursuance to the order passed by the Reference Court that the value of the lands were given @Rs. 38 per sq.ft. (Rupees Thirty Eight per Square Feet), and the petitioners were awarded compensation. Admittedly, award amount have been released to the petitioners with interest @9% for the first year, beginning from the date of possession and, thereafter, @15% per year till the date of assessment, i.e., on 23.04.2019. 38 per sq.ft. (Rupees Thirty Eight per Square Feet), and the petitioners were awarded compensation. Admittedly, award amount have been released to the petitioners with interest @9% for the first year, beginning from the date of possession and, thereafter, @15% per year till the date of assessment, i.e., on 23.04.2019. There was no compensation awarded before this, hence, there was also no enhancement of award. Therefore, no more interest can be claimed either under section 34 or 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The interest has been already given at the rate prescribed by the Act so no more interest need be given. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioners that interest should be granted under section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no basis. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel of the respondents that the interest paid was only till the date the final assessment was made. As per the provisions of the two sections, i.e., section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, interest has to be paid till the award amount is paid. In this case the award was paid only on 13.03.2021. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest between 23.04.2019 to 13.03.2021 - the first date being the day the assessment was made and till which the interest had been paid and the second being the day the full amount of the award was paid. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of this Order. The petition is partly allowed.