CWP No. 17641 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 17641 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 31, 2011 Gurmukh Singh and another …Petitioners Versus Land Acquisition Collector/ Officer & another ...Respondents 2. CWP No. 17073 of 2011 Raj Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus Land Acquisition Collector & another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACTING CJ. 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 17641 of 2011 and 17073 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as the common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 17641 of 2011. The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of direction to Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No.1 to disburse the amount of compensation in lieu of the acquisition of CWP No. 17641 of 2011 -2- the land of the petitioners along with interest as payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to respondent No.1 to forward the reference under Section 30 of the Act to the court of competent jurisdiction and the application filed by respondent No.2, namely, Aprajita Project Pvt. Ltd. be decided in a time bound manner. 2. In response to the notice of motion having been issued, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the principal amount of compensation as per award has been paid to the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the element of interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act has not been paid. 3. Ms. Palika Monga, learned DAG, Haryana states that the application under Section 30 filed by respondent No.2 has been decided and the claim made by him has been rejected. She has further argued that no interest is payable to the petitioners on account of the fact that a dispute was raised under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment by respondent No.2 who had cited an agreement between him and the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the short issue which survives for consideration is whether the petitioners would be entitled to payment of statutory interest as per provisions of Section 34 of the Act. A perusal of Section 34 of the Act would show that for the delay of one year from CWP No. 17641 of 2011 -3- the date of award, the interest @ 9% is payable. There is nothing in the aforesaid provision which may support the argument raised by the learned State counsel that the interest should not be paid in case a dispute concerning apportionment has been raised. This may be for the reason that the interest is compensatory for compulsory acquisition, if there is delay in depositing the amount or in disbursement of the same irrespective of the pendency of reference under Section 30 of the Act. The amount remains in the hands of the Land Acquisition Collector or is deposited with the reference court which invariably bear interest. Therefore, the statutory provision has to be complied with. 5. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed with a direction to respondent No.1 to disburse interest @ 9% to the petitioners as awarded on 23.05.2011 and the amount has been disbursed on 05.10.2011. Let the amount be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. 6. It is made clear that the right of respondent No.2 would not be adversely affected by the observations made in this order. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE October 31, 2011 Atul