IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10568 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 Jagdev Singh Chahal and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to the respondents to release the balance amount of compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector- respondent No. 2, vide award dated 4.6.1999 (P-3) on account of acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners were owner of 44 Kanals 17 Marlas of land comprised in the revenue estate of village Rattan Kanakwal, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. Out of the aforesaid land, CWP No. 10568 of 2009 31 Kanals 07 Marlas was Nehri whereas the remaining 13 Kanals 10 Marlas of land was Barani in nature. The aforementioned land was acquired by the respondent State pursuant to notifications dated 27.8.1997 and 14.10.1997 (P-1 & P-2), issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17(2) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Oil Refinery and Liquid Fuel based Power Plant at Villages Phulokhari, Kanakwal Ramsra and Raman, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. On 4.6.1999, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act (P-3). The compensation in respect of various types of land was fixed at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide award dated 29.11.2005. Eventually the petitioners filed R.F.A. No. 2959 of 2006 in this Court challenging the award passed by the Reference Court. On 22.10.2008, this Court remanded the matter back to the Reference Court. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not paid the amount of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector including the statutory interest and other benefits available to them under the provisions of the Act. In that regard, the petitioners made a representation dated 24.11.2007 (P-4), which was followed by a subsequent representation dated 27.12.2007 (P-6). Eventually a legal notice dated 12.5.2009 (P-7) was also sent by the petitioners. In the representation dated 27.12.2007, it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 28,129.86 paise was due towards petitioner No. 1 as on 2 CWP No. 10568 of 2009 31.12.2007 and a sum of Rs. 58,151.63 paise was due to be paid to petitioner No. 2 as on 31.12.2007. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the stand taken in the preliminary submissions is that the land measuring 44 Kanals 17 Marlas belonging to the petitioners was acquired invoking urgency provisions of the Act, therefore, 80% of the estimated compensation of Rs. 19,53,105/- was paid to the petitioners on 23.12.1997 and 23.1.1998. The balance 20% amount of Rs. 5,49,157/- in terms of the award dated 4.6.1999 (P-3) was also paid to the petitioners on 11.6.1999 as per the details given in the chart Annexure R-1, which also included the element of interest as provided under Section 34 of the Act. The respondents claimed that the entire amount of compensation as per the award announced by the Collector had already been paid to the petitioners. It has further been pointed out that in the year 2006 interest had wrongly been paid to 73 land owners whose land was also acquired by the same notifications. However, on examination of the matter it was found that they were not entitled to the interest because the Land Acquisition Collector has no power to make payment to the land owners over and above the award as approved by the competent authority i.e. Government or as awarded by the Courts. It has also been submitted that the officials who were at fault have been proceeded against in departmental proceedings. According to the respondents, the petitioners have wrongly claimed interest under Section 34 of the Act in their representations dated 24.11.2007, 27.12.2007 and legal notice dated 12.5.2009 because the land of the petitioners was acquired invoking urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and the element of 3 CWP No. 10568 of 2009 interest for the period from the date of possession to the date of award under Section 34 of the Act was allowed in the award itself and the payment has already been received by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any interest under Section 34 of the Act. 5. It has further been pointed out that on 28.3.2008, the petitioners also filed an application dated 28.3.2008 under Section 34 of the Act for payment of interest in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda (R-2). Besides this they have also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 11(2) read with Section 151 CPC for execution of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 passed in land reference Case No. 138 of 2000 in the executing court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, which is pending adjudication (R-3). However, these facts have not been disclosed by the petitioners in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioners have not raised the issue of interest under Section 34 of the Act in their reference filed under Section 18 of the Act, wherein they have only claimed enhancement of compensation of their land and superstructures (R-4). 6. A separate reply by respondent No. 3-HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd. has also been filed which is almost on the similar lines what has already been noticed in the preceding para. 7. In their replication to the written statement of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioners have taken the plea that possession of the acquired land was taken by the Collector and the same was delivered to respondent No. 3-HPCL on 2.12.1997 but 80% amount of compensation of Rs. 9,76,552.50 paise was paid to petitioner No. 1 4 CWP No. 10568 of 2009 on 23.12.1997 and Rs. 9,76,552.50 paise were paid to petitioner No. 2 on 23.1.1998, whereas the same were required to be paid on or before the date of taking of possession of the acquired land. In this manner, the Collector has failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, the respondents are bound to pay interest under Section 34 of the Act because nothing prevented them to make payment of the assessed compensation before taking of the possession of the acquired land. Thus, the petitioners have claimed that the entire balance of compensation ought to have been paid to them with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired land i.e. from 2.12.1997 till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum for the subsequent period from 2.12.1998 till the date of actual payment. In that regard, the petitioners have placed reliance on para 29 of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 457. They have also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gurdev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 1122 of 2007, decided on 30.5.2008, Annexure P-10). 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that there is substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act providing for payment of compensation. A perusal of the affidavit filed by Shri T.K. Goyal, P.C.S., Collector Land Acquisition, Department of Industries and Commerce, Punjab, Chanidgarh, dated 27.8.2009, would show that payment of the amount of 80% of the estimated compensation of the land was made on 23.12.1997 and 23.1.1998 to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The balance 5 CWP No. 10568 of 2009 amount of 20% compensation, which included the element of interest under Section 34 of the Act, as per the award has also been received by the petitioners on 11.6.1999. A perusal of Annexure R-1 appended with the aforesaid affidavit shows that the compensation has been paid by including the element of solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12%, interest @ 9% for the first year and interest @ 15% for the subsequent years. Therefore, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is well settled that interest under Section 34 of the Act on delayed payment is payable, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 and Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that there are still some balance amount which the respondents are liable to pay. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel has stated that the petitioners may make a representation with regard to any such outstanding amount payable as per law and the same shall be disbursed to them if found due. 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation with regard to any outstanding amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If any amount is found due as per the provisions of law, the same shall be paid to the petitioners expeditiously but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the representation. 11. A copy of the order be given dasti to the parties on payment of usual charges. 6 CWP No. 10568 of 2009 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 28, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 7