ORDER : THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL 1. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Munjaal M. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short as the “Corporation”) seeking for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 09.04.2025 issued by the respondent namely the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Savli, asking the petitioner to deposit the interest amounting to Rs. 49,47,19,349/-, under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( in short the Act’2013), as per the draft award approved by the State Government on 08.04.2025. 3. Before proceeding with the matter, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein is the beneficiary of the lands acquired under the Act’2013, with respect to which, the award under the Act’2013 for determination of compensation was passed on 18.08.2017. The sole ground of challenging the communication sent by the Deputy Collector namely the competent authority in the matter of redetermination of compensation by applying Factor ‘2’ and interest under Section 80 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT is that the landholders had approached this Court with a substantial delay, inasmuch as, the original award towards compensation for the lands in question under Section 26 of the Act’2013, was passed on 18.08.2017, by applying Factor ‘1’ for the Village:Asoj (where the land in question lies) being classified as an “Urban Area”. 4. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the award dated 18.08.2017 was passed strictly in conformity with the notifications issued by the State Government dated 25.04.2014, 29.07.2016 and 10.11.2016. The compensation determined by the competent authority was duly deposited at the relevant point of time and the possession of the land in question was then handed over to the petitioner-Corporation on 22.08.2017 and 31.08.2017. 5. The subsequent notifications classifying the area in question as “rural area”, where the land in question situated, modifying the list of ‘urban areas’ had been issued by the State Government. The challenge to the notifications dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 issued by the State Government was sustained by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8734 of 2019 and allied petitions, which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2018. The challenge to the notifications dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 issued by the State Government was sustained by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8734 of 2019 and allied petitions, which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2018. With the quashing of two notifications dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018, the benefit of Multiplying Factor ‘2’ was made applicable treating the area in question as ‘rural area’. 6. Even after declaration of law vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2018, none of the landholders approached this Court or the competent authority seeking for redetermination of compensation by applying Factor ‘2’. It was argued that under the Scheme of the Act’2013, the competent authority became functus officio after declaration of the award and it was only on the application made by the landholders, modified/amended/ supplementary award could have been passed in light of the decision of this Court. 7. As the landholders remained silent upto the year 2024, when they approached this Court for the first time, in the writ petitions wherein orders were passed for grant of benefit of Factor ‘2’, appended from pages no. ‘61’ to ‘85’; benefit of Section 80 interest (9% and 15%) cannot be accorded to them. 8. It was vehemently argued that for the delay on the part of the landholders, they cannot be provided benefit of interest which is to be accrued from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit of the compensation. It was contended that the Corporation had deposited compensation well in time, duly determined by the competent authority in the award dated 18.08.2017 and it being a public sector undertaking, cannot be saddled with the additional liability of the compensation for the fault on the part of the land holders. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 246-55 of 2020 in the case of Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 255 ; in case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896 and Civil Appeal No. 9415 of 2019 in case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 255 ; in case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896 and Civil Appeal No. 9415 of 2019 in case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599 ; to substantiate the submissions that for the delay on the part of the landholders, none of them are entitled to interest under Section 80 of the Act, though Factor ‘2’ benefit may be provided to them. 9. Dealing with all these submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that none of the landholders with respect of whose lands, draft awards have been passed under the orders passed by this Court, and approved by the State Government on 08.04.2025, and consequently communication dated 09.04.2025 has been issued by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional, Magistrate, Savli, are party to the present petition. 10.We may further note that the decisions of this Court appended from Page No. 61 to 85 are in different writ petitions filed by the land holders wherein the Corporation was impleaded as the respondent and was represented by the learned advocate appearing on its behalf. A perusal of one such order at page no. ‘61’ of the paper book indicates that the landholders approached this Court in the year 2024 seeking redetermination of compensation under the award dated 18.08.2017, on the ground that they are entitled for the compensation treating the land in question lying in “‘Rural Area” as per the Act’2013. It was argued by the petitioners therein as noted in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 as under:- “3. The assertion of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioners were entitled to determination of compensation by applying Factor ‘2’ as per the First Schedule of the Act, 2013, in the award itself i. e. which was passed on 18.08.2017. However, on account of a Notification dated 25.04.2014, wherein direction was given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to declare the pending award under Section 11 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, by considering multiplying Factor ‘1’ only, the award dated 18.08.2017 was passed by multiplying Factor ‘1’ only in the First Schedule. However, on account of a Notification dated 25.04.2014, wherein direction was given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to declare the pending award under Section 11 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, by considering multiplying Factor ‘1’ only, the award dated 18.08.2017 was passed by multiplying Factor ‘1’ only in the First Schedule. As regards the application for application of Factor ‘2’ in the First Schedule, the matter was kept pending as it was a policy decision of the State Government. However, the Notification dated 25.04.2014 has further clarified that the fact that the application of Factor ‘2’ was a policy decision should be mentioned in the award itself and in future, when the State Government decides the multiplying factor for rural area as per the Act, 2013, then the additional compensation would be payable with interest as per the Act, 2013 by the acquiring body. 4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Notification notifying the policy decision with respect to application of Factor ‘2’ as per First Schedule of the Act2013 was issued on 29.07.2016. The said Notification was later modified and certain disputes arose with respect to the subsequent Notifications dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018, which has been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.8734 of 2019, connected with other petitions. This Court, while setting aside the Government Resolutions dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 has issued directions to modify the awards and recompute the compensation qua the lands of the petitioners by multiplying the market value by application of Factor ‘2’ and all other statutory benefits. 5. The submissions is that the judgment and order dated 12.09.2019 passed by this Court is being followed in subsequent writ petitions, wherein the issue has been raised with respect to declaration of award under the Act, 2013, without applying Factor ‘2’ in Schedule - II of the Act, 2013.” 11.In so far as the case of the Corporation, the submissions made by the learned advocate have been noted in the paragraph no. 6 as under:- “6. 6 as under:- “6. Shri Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited would submit that the petitioners herein are entitled for consideration of their claim on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 29.07.2016, whereby the State Government had determined the application of Factor ‘2’ under Section 26 (1) of the Act, 2013 as per the First Schedule. However,the question as to whether the area-in-question is falling in rural area within the meaning of Rules, 2017 and, thus, application of Factor ‘2’ in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Act, 2013, is to be inquired by the competent authority for determination of the claim of the petitioners herein.” 12.Noticing the above, on the ground that a factual inquiry is required to be made at the ends of the competent authority to ascertain the nature of the land in question being entitled to the benefit of multiplication Factor ‘2’ in accordance with Section 26 (2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 2013, the matter was relegated to the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioners by taking into consideration all attending circumstances/ factors as per the provisions of the Section 26 (1) of the Act, 2013, keeping in mind the Government Resolution dated 29.07.2016 read with the Government Resolution dated 25.04.2014. 13.We may note that it was clarified in paragraph no. ‘8’ of the said decision that determination of all statutory benefits admissible to the petitioner shall be made by the competent authority keeping in mind the observations made in the said decision. 14.Noticing the above, we may take note of the facts noted in paragraph no. 3 of the judgment and order dated 10.06.2024 (extracted hereinbefore). It was the specific case of the petitioner before this Court in the writ petition filed in the year 2024, that the notification dated 25.04.2014, on the basis of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer/ Competent Authority had declared the award by considering the multiplying Factor ‘1’ only, had clarified the fact that the application of Factor ‘2’ was a policy decision and the said should be mentioned in the award itself and in future, when the State Government decides the multiplying factor for ‘rural area’ as per the Act’2013, then the additional compensation would be payable with the interest as per the Act’ 2013, by the acquiring body. 15.Taking note of the said facts which were required to be mentioned in the award passed on 18.08.2017 in view of the notification dated 25.04.2014 and considering the stand of the learned advocate appearing for the Corporation that the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their claim on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 29.07.2016, whereby the State Government had determined the application of Factor ‘2’ under Section 26 (1) of the Act',2013, as per the First Schedule, the said writ petition has been disposed of relegating the matter for a limited inquiry. The only question left for consideration was as to whether the land in question falls in the ‘rural area’ and is entitled to be given benefit of Multiplication Factor ‘2’ or not. In so far as the statutory interest under Section 80 of the Act, 2013, the same would be attracted by operation of law, inasmuch as, the additional compensation determined under the award passed by the competent authority in terms of the directions issued by this Court would attract interest under Section 80 of the Act, inasmuch as, had there been a determination at the relevant point of time before taking possession of the land in question, the additional compensation, now computed, was required to be paid by the acquiring body. 16.Noticing the above facts, we are afraid to appreciate the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel to assail the determination made by the competent authority in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in writ petitions filed by the landholders wherein benefits were accorded in accordance with law. The amended award, which has been prepared by the competent authority, approved by the State Government on 08.04.2025, is incompliance of the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the landholders. 17.For the above noted facts, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the landholders were at fault and the Corporation cannot saddled with the additional liability of interest for the fault of the landholders is completely misconceived. 17.For the above noted facts, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the landholders were at fault and the Corporation cannot saddled with the additional liability of interest for the fault of the landholders is completely misconceived. 18.At the cost of the repetition, as noted hereinabove, the notification dated 25.04.2014 issued by the State Government pursuant to which the award dated 18.08.2017 was prepared, itself clarified that once the issue of multiplying factor for ‘rural area’ was decided by the State Government as per the Act’2013, additional compensation would be payable with interest as per the Act’2013, by the acquiring body. This adjudication having been made by the State Government by Government Resolution dated 29.07.2016 was required to be adhered to. However, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the said notification was modified with the further Government Resolution dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 wherein benefits were denied, which have been quashed by this Court in the judgment and order dated 12.09.2019. After the decision of this Court on the issue of determination of the Multiplying Factor ‘2’, additional compensation by declaration of the supplementary/ additional award was required to be made by the competent authority, in terms of the Government resolution dated 29.07.2016. 19.It seems that since the appropriate action was not taken by the competent authority, the landholders were forced to approach this Court from time and again and under the directions issued by this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the Corporation (petitioner herein), determination was made by including Multiplying Factor ‘2’ and the statutory interest payable under the Act’2013. 20.In this scenario, this Court cannot permit the Corporation to reagitate the issue by filing this petition, which is nothing but asking this Court to sit in appeal over the decisions of the Coordinate benches, in the writ petitions filed by the landholders wherein specific directions have been issued to pass additional awards for determination of compensation by applying Factor ‘2’ and statutory benefits, that too in the absence of landholders, whose cases have been decided by this Court. 21.As regards the judgments relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to note that all the said decisions have been rendered in cases where there was a delay in challenging the original award by approaching the reference Court under Section 18 or the application under Section 28A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, seeking enhanced compensation as per the reference court award. The ratio of none of the decisions would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the competent authority was obligated to prepare an additional award after determination of the dispute by the State Government with respect to the application of Factor ‘2’ in the area and final adjudication made by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.07.2019. 22.Lastly, the reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29.08.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Gujarat 3379 is of no benefit to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the said decision has been rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. 23.As regards the reference to the communication dated 08.04.2025, the letter of approval issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the question as to whether the statutory interest under Section 80 of the Act’2013 was payable under the additional award passed by the competent authority was required to be adjudicated before issuance of the communication dated 09.04.2025 asking the petitioner to deposit, which has not been done, is untenable for the reasons given hereinbefore. The award dated 18.08.2017 itself included the fact that on determination of multiplying Factor ‘2’ as per the Act, 2013 by the State Government, the landholders would be entitled to additional compensation with interest which would have to be determined and paid by the acquiring body, nothing much can be seen. 24.For the aforesaid, the present petition is found to be misconceived and hence, dismissed.