^^.s^"^ ^c^^ir nws ^;; .^ ,' ^ L,,.^..; ';-^ ^-." <:: ^?'.?'- :' ^" <?^^zr=,/_ BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fCi N0. ^-6 2) O/ 2009 PETITIONER ^ ^r;^- ..<^^-^'.. ...-•"r^ ^ )..,-<^ r'k^'"^ ' ..?:€ ^-'" -^ \\ ,v^' ^ ^ ^'" ^•>".....'- 1) Shri Swaroop Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Jain, Aged about 50 years. R/o Sambalpur, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) 2) Shri Suresh Jain, S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Jain, Aged about 46 years, R/o Sambalpur, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh - through the Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Joint Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, DK8 Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) . ^ ^ The Collector, Kanker , Dist. Kanker The Land Acquisition Officer, Kanker, Dist. Kanker 5) The Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhanupratapaur, Dist. Bastar •:-t- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA 1 ^. ^:^^ ^F^ ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2630 of2009 PETITIONER : Shri Swaroop Chand Jain & Another. VERSUS KI':SPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. '\^ '^.' ^-^' Post ibr pronouncement ofjudgment & order on . .Z ."day ofJuly^ 2011. ^" \ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge .-/d •-^^^^ ":iy^-^' ty^:^--s| j ^'^ • ^' ^ ^': HLGH COURT OF CHRATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ili-'/rinoNER WRITPETITiQN[ClKo,2630^f2009 Shri Swaroop Chand Jain & Another. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. l)lcseiit: Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. 2. ^T^. (Delivered on ..7/.::day ofJuly, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the balance amount with interest and interest on the interest due from the date of acquisition of their property and further, a sum of Rs. 505000/- as compensatiori for hardship and agony sffered by the petitioners. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that way back in the yearl946, the land ofthe petitioners admeasuring 4.20 acres situated at khasra No. 207/2 at Bhanpuratappur, was acquired by the Forest Department without due process pf law. The petitioners made several representations, legal notices and made various correspondences with the respondent authorities for grant of compensation or for allotment of altemate plot, but nothing was done. Later on, in the year 1985, the land acquisition proceeding :Mi^': "s^&^^ ^,, ^' ^^'; started by issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') but when no award could be passed within the stipulated period as provided under section 11(A) ofthe Act, 1894, the proceeding lapsed. Thereafter, again notification under section 4 and 6 was issued on 03.05.1989 (Annexure P/7) and award was passed on 25.08.1990 and an amount of Rs.17526,000/- was awarded. However, the full compensation was not paid but an amount of Rs. 9,90,544/- was paid in the year 1993 and the balance amount was paid in the year 2009. The petitioner is claiming interest on the part of the amount which remained unpaid from the date possession of the land was taken till final payment was made, under the provisions of section 34 oftheAct, 1894. Shri Surana, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that in the year 1945-46., the land admeasuring 2.25 acres was illegally and arbitrarily occupied by theForest Department without notice to the petitioner or without obtaining any consent. Thereafter, ih the year 1973, 1.95 acres of land bearing Khasra No. 207/2 was again encroached upon and thus, a total land admeasuring 4.20 acres ofthe petitioners was acquired by the respondent authorities. Shri Surana, would further submit that the petitioners made several representations/communication to the respondent authorities for grant of compensation or any altemate plot. After 17 years, a notification under section 4 ofthe Act, 1894 was issued 03.05.1989 which was already acquired by the respondents in the year 1947 and 1973 respectively. Thus, the petitioners had no opportunity for filing j ^- ^' ^' ^-^'- of any objection under section 5A ofthe Act., 1894 as it was stated that the acquisition fell under section 17 ofthe Act, 1894. After the said notification dated 03.05.1989 (Annexure P/7), an award dated 12.11.1990 (AnnexureP/8) was passed and the property was valued to the tune ofRs. 16,38,000/- with intefest ofRs. 88,200/-. However, only Rs. 9,91,544/- was paid on 31.03.1993 and thereafter, the balance amount of Rs. 7,34,656/- was. paid to the petitioner on 13.01.2009. However, no interest has been paid on the amount, which remained unpaid for long time which the petitioners became entitled to under the provisions ofsection 34 ofthe Act^ 1894. On the other hand, Shri Dwivedi, leamed Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the instant petition deser^es to be dismissed on the ground ofalternate remedy. If the petitioner was aggrieved by non payment of any part of the award, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under section 18 ofthe Act, 1894 before the competentcivil court. Further, so far as the interest part is concemed, the award amount was paid in the year 1993 and at that time, without any protest, the petitioners accepted the entire amount and after lapse of 16 years, he has preferred this petition. Thus, on the ground of delay also, this petition deser^es to be dismissed. Shri Dwivedi, would further submit that as per Section 34 ofthe Act, 1894, interest is payable on the principal amount, and not on the amount of interest itself. The petitioner has been awarded Rs.16,38,000/- with interest of Rs. 88,200/- after valuation of the property. ^" Y. .^ ^" ^ \s^ K. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 9. Indisputably^ the possession of a portion of land in dispute admeasuring 4.20 acres was taken over in 1946 and thereafter, the remaining portion admeasuring 1.95 acres oflandwas taken over in the year 1973 by the State authorities, illegally and without following the proper procedure of law for acquisition of the land held by the petitioners. 10. It is also not in dispute that notification under the provisions of Section 4 ofthe Act, 1894 was published on 3-5-1989. Thereafter, provisions of Section 5A was invoked denying opportunity of objections to the petitioners. The award was finally passed on 12-11-1990. The value ofthe land was determined at Rs. 16,38,000/- with interest at Rs.88,200/- in total Rs.17,26,200/-. It is also not disputed by the State authorities that a sum of Rs.9,91,544/- was paid on 31-3-1993 and the remaining amount was paid on 13-1- 2009. 11. Now the question is asto whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date oftaking over of the possession ofthe land in question or from the date ofpublication ofSection 4 (1) notification ? 12. Law in this respect is well settled that under Section 4 (1) ofthe Act, 1894 the market value shall be determined on the date ofpublication of notification under Section 4 (1) and the interest shall be payable from the date oftaking over possession ofthe land. ^" ..-^^r"""'^, /^ "% if .,-0., ^ I t^P^ I "^l^^' "1. ^" ^^.'/ ^^ '^.^ '"^•^s^^^^' .^•' ^" ^ 13. 14. 15. In the case on hand, possession was taken over much before publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894. Since the petitioners have not raised any dispute froni the date of taking over ofpossession till notification under Section 4 (1) ofthe Act, 1894 was published, the petitioners may not be entitled to interest. Further, the petitioners have also accepted the compensation amount determined with the award dated 12-11-1990. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the remaining period from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the total amount from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) dated 3-5-1989 for a period of one year and 15% for the remainmg period till the payment is made. In case ofpayment ofRs.9,91,544/- the interest, as aforestated, will be payable up to 31-3-1993 and in case of the remaining amount i.e. Rs.7,34,656/-, the interest, at the rate, as obser^ed hereinabove, shall be payable upto 13-1-2009. The Supreme Court in State ofPunjab v. Amarjit Singh andAnother observed as under: "12. Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to the following amounts under the Act: (a) (b) (c) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (d) Interest on the aggregate of (a), (b) and (c) above for the period )(2011)4SCC734 ^'^' k ^-^•' fk^' ^ VS^ between the date of taking possession to the date ofpayment/deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period." K). In view of foregoing, it is ordered that the State/respondents shall calculate the interest, as aforestated, from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) ofthe Act, 1894, within a period of four weeks from the date ofthis order. 17. Having regard to the facts situation-of the case, wherein the possession was taken over long back, though, the dispute was not raised by the petitioners earlier, the petitioners were deprived oftheir constitutional right^ as enshrmed under Article 300A of the Constitution oflndia, thus/the petitioners are entitled to cost, as the respondent authorities have illegally & unauthorisedly taken over the possession ofthe land in dispute. IK. For the reasons and analysis mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the present case, this petition is allowed with costs quantified to be a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- payable lo the petitioners within a period ofthree weeks from the date ofthis order. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aiiiil/ ( 10\VI 1 ^";:.^'