1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5856 OF 2010 1. Narayan S/o Dhondiba Padare (Salunke) Age 48 Years, Occup. Agril. 2. Suryabhan S/o Dhondiba Padare (Salunke) Age : 45 years Occup. Agril. 3. Devanand S/o Narayan Padare (Salunke) Age 34 years, Occup. Agril. 4. Vikash S/o Narayan Padare (salunke) Age 48 years, Occup.Agril. 5. Muktabai W/o Narayan Padare (Salunke)deceased through LRS. 5-A Narayan S/o Suryabhan Padare (Salunke) Age 26 years Occup.Agril. 6. Parmeshwar S/o Suryabhan Padare (Salunke) Age : 26 years Occup. Agril. 7. Umakant S/o Suryabhan Padare (Salunke) Age 24 years,Occup. Agril. 2 8. Dayanand S/o Suryabha Padare (Salunke) Age : 22 years, Occup. Agril. All R/o Khadgaon, Tq. & District Latur. ...PETITIONERS. V E R S U S. 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, The Public Works Division & Road Development, Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Finance Secretary, The Public Works Division & Road Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Ausa Road, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Smt. Madhaveshwari D. Thube-Mhase Advocate for Petitioners. Shri.N.B.Khandare,Govt.Pleader for Respondents. ... CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 18th NOVEMBER,2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT :[ PER : K.K.TATED, J.] 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3 3. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 4. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the amount of interest @ 6% on the amount of rental compensation paid to the petitioners under Land Acquisition Act (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity). Short question arises in the present case is “Whether petitioners are entitled to interest @ 6% on the amount paid to them towards rental compensation under the Act, if possession is taken prior to the issuing Notification under section 4 of the Act. FEW FACTS OF THEMATTER ARE AS UNDR: 5. In the present case, the respondent-State issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4th January, 2006 for acquiring petitioners- Original Claimants' land for construction of road. 4 After following due procedure of law, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under section 11 of the act on 27th November, 2007. In the said Award, it is specifically stated that Acquiring Body took possession of the acquired lands on 26th May, 1992. On 13th March, 2008, the petitioners have filed an applications for rental compensation, in view of the Government Resolution. Since the applications seeking rental compensation was not decided, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2008 in this Court seeking direction to the respondents to decide their applications. The said Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2008 decided by the Division Bench of this this Court (Coram : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ.), on 12th September, 2008 directing the State-Authority to decide entitlement of the petitioners' claim in respect of rental compensation. 6. After order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2008, the Special Land 5 Acquisition officer by his letter dated 25th March, 2009 communicated to the petitioners that the request for payment of rental compensation was rejected on the ground that the petitioners' lands were acquired for non agricultural purpose. 7. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 25th March, 2009, petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 2301 of 2009 in this Court. The said Writ Petition decided by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.) on 13th November, 2009, holding that the petitioners are entitled to rental compensation and directed the respondents to pay rental compensation to the petitioners for their acquired lands in accordance with the Government Resolution within a period of four months from the date of the order. 8. Thereafter, respondent- Authority calculated rental compensation and offered to the petitioners. The petitioners have accepted the 6 said compensation under protest by their letter dated 18th May, 2010 stating that they are also entitled to interest @ 6% on the said amount. In spite of the said communication respondent- Authority failed to pay the interest, therefore, petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following relief. [B] “By writ a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direct the respondents to pay the amount of interest @ 6% on the amount of rental compensation calculated at Exh.G to the petitioners and for that purpose issue necessary orders.” 9. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that despite grant of interest @ 6% being contemplated under Government Resolution dated 24th March, 1988, as also being upheld by this Court and the Apex Court, the respondents failed to 7 calculate the rental compensation payable to the petitioners and also did not calculate the period for which interest @ 6% as payable nor the amount of interest @ 6% was paid. 10. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that there is no dispute as to the date of taking of the possession. There is also no dispute of non payment of rental compensation within six months, which has become payable as per Government Resolution of 1972, therefore, entitlement of the petitioners to grant interest @ 6% cannot be in dispute. She further submits that respondents- Authorities have deliberately only to deprive the petitioners from their rightful claim denied the interest @ 6% payable as per Government Resolution. 11. In support of her contentions learned counsel appearing for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in the matter State of Maharashtra Vs. Maimuma Banu and others reported in 2003 LAC 8 877 (SC). In that case the Apex Court decided the question whether the claimants are entitled to interest @ 6% on the rental compensation. Para No. 11 of the said Judgment reads as under: “11. It is not in dispute that in certain cases payments have already been made. Though the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court is not justified in directing grant of interest on the logic of various provisions contained in the Act. Yet there is an element of equity in favour of the land owners. It is, however, seen that the writ applications were filed long after the possession was taken. This factor cannot be lost sight of while working out the equities. It would therefore be appropriate if appellants pay interest @ 6% from 1.4.2000 till amount payable as rental compensation are paid to the concerned land owners. This direction shall not apply to those cases where the payments have already been made prior to 1.4.2000. Appeals are allowed to 9 the extent indicated without any stipulation of costs.” 12. The learned counsel also relied on the unreported judgment in the matter of Dinkar S/o Sandipan Gholve Vs. State of Maharashtra and others decided on 24th July, 2008 by Division Bench [Coram : F.I. REBELLO AND SANTOSH BORA, JJ] ( as then Lordship). In this case also this Court held that claimants were entitled to interest @ 6% on rental compensation, as per Government Resolution dated 24th March, 1988. Para No. 13 and 14 of the Judgment reads as under: “13. Learned counsel apart from that brought to our attention the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & ors Vs. Maimuna Ban & ors., AIR 2003 SC 3698 which has also considered the G.Rs., issued by the State including another resolution dated 24th March, 1988 which requires that he payment will be realized expeditiously as possible but in no case beyond the 10 period of six months from the date of the judgment by the Collector concerned. It is in that context that the Supreme Court observed that it will be appropriate that if the appellant pay interest at the rate of 6% on the rental compensation. If, therefore, the respondent state has not paid the rental compensation with six months as contemplated by resolution of 24th March, 1988 the said rental compensation will carry interest at the rate of 6% till payment. “14. Having answered the issue in our opinion, it would be appropriate that the petitioners are relegated to appear before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who will consider the following aspects:- (i) Date of actual taking over possession. (ii) Date of publication of Notification Under section 4(1)(whichever is first) gazette, newspaper or publication in the locality. 11 The Special Land Acquisition Officer will then work out the rental compensation at 8 percent from the date of taking possession till the amount awarded under the Award has been paid or in the case of dispute till the amount is deposited before the reference Court. Interest will be payable on the said rental compensation at the rate of 6% from the expiry of six months as contemplated in Government G.R. Dated 24th March, 1988 till payments contemplated by Government G.R. Dated 1st December, 1972.” 13. On the basis of above mentioned submissions and authorities relied, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 6% on rental compensation payable, as per Government resolution. 14. On the other hand, Mr.Khandare, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent-State vehemently opposed the present 12 relief claimed by the petitioners. 15. One Mr. Anil Dnyaneshwar Sagar, Working as Assistant Engineer Grade-I Public Works Building, Sub-Division Latur, filed affidavit-in-reply on 23rd July, 2010 opposing the relief claimed in the present Writ petition. In para No. 8 of his affidavit-in-reply, he stated that petitioners are not entitled to interest on rental compensation as the petitioners relied on case law reported in 2003 LAC Page 877 S.C is not applicable to the present case, as said case law is only applicable in that case only. 16. Considering the Government Resolution dated 24th March, 1988, the Apex Court Judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Maiuma Banu and others and in the matter of Dinkar Sandipan Gholve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others cited supra, it it crystal clear that the petitioners-original claimants are entitled to interest on the rental compensation 13 payable under the Act, in view of the Government Resolution along with interest, if there is delay of more than six months. In the present case, admittedly, respondent-State failed to pay the rental compensation to the petitioners within six months, immediately from its due date. For getting the rental compensation the petitioners approached this Court twice, by preferring the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is already fully covered by the Apex Court as well as this Court’s Judgment as referred herein above and as per those decisions, the petitioners are entitled to the claim they have made. 17. The Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause [B], subject to verification of calculation, which reads as under: [B] “By writ a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, in the nature of writ of mandamus 14 or any other appropriate writ, order direct the respondents to pay the amount of interest @ 6% on the amount of rental compensation calculated at Exh.G to the petitioners and for that purpose issue necessary orders.” 18. Payment to be made within six months from receipt of copy of this order. 19. No order as to costs. sd/- sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [ B.R.GAVAI, J.] MTK