L.P.A. No.113 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.04.2009 Surinderjit Singh Sandhu and others .....Appellants versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. Present : Mr.Vinod K.Kataria, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Suveer Sehgal, Addl.AG, Punjab, for respondent No.3. -.- J.S.KHEHAR, J. The present controversy pertains to the action of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in erecting an electricity tower in the land of the appellants, situated within the municipal limits of Muktsar. The aforesaid electric tower was erected for installation of a 132 KV electric-line. The land of the appellants measuring 2.7 marlas was taken by respondent Nos.1 & 2 for the erection of an electricity tower, for which a compensation of a sum of Rs.59970/- was awarded to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to the appellants, they preferred an application under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraphs L.P.A. No.113 of 2007 2 Act, 1885, read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for enhancement of compensation. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that the appellants also claimed compensation because respondent Nos.1 & 2 had cut a number of trees from the land over which the 132 KV electric-line was to pass. The Additional District Judge, Muktsar, vide his order dated 3.6.1999, awarded the appellants compensation of Rs.70,395/-. The aforestated compensation included the compensation for the land acquired. The order dated 3.6.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, was challenged by the appellants in this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.1749 of 2000, which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge on 27.9.2006. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 27.9.2006. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is, that besides the compensation awarded to the appellants, they were entitled to be paid interest from the date their land was taken by respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that what has been belatedly paid to them, was their rightful due when their land was taken by the respondents (as also when their tress were cut by the respondents). As against the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2, that there is no provision to grant interest, and as such, no interest was payable to the appellants. Additionally, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that interest awarded to the L.P.A. No.113 of 2007 3 appellants is on the higher side inasmuch as the appellants have been awarded interest @ 12% p.a. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellants have been duly compensated. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties on the issue of interest payable to the appellants. We are satisfied that the appellants were entitled to compensation from the very day when their land was acquired and the trees on their land were cut by respondent Nos.1 & 2. The compensation awarded to the appellants having been delayed in terms of the payment, it is apparent that the claim raised through the instant L.P.A., demanding interest from the date when the possession of the land was taken by respondent Nos.1 & 2, is fully justified. We, accordingly, allow the instant L.P.A. on the afore-stated limited issue, and direct respondent Nos.1 & 2 to pay the interest at the rate determined by the learned Single Judge, to the appellants w.e.f. the date when the possession of the land was taken and the tress standing thereon were cut. It is not possible for us to accept the two submissions advanced by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. First and foremost, it was open to the respondents to impugn the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, dated 27.9.2006, to contest the rate of interest. Having not done so, the aforesaid rate of interest determined by the learned Single Judge, is binding on them. In so far as the submission, that the statutory provisions do not envisage payment of interest is concerned, we are of the view that the instant submission does not lie in the mouth of the respondents. If the respondents have unnecessarily and unjustifiably delayed the payment to the rightful owners, it is natural and incumbent for the Court L.P.A. No.113 of 2007 4 to award interest over and above the entitlement of compensation w.e.f., the date the land owners have been deprived of their valuable rights. Therefore, we find no merit in the two submissions advanced by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the limited extent noticed herein above. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (J.S.KHEHAR) JUDGE 21-04-2009 (UMA NATH SINGH) Mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not ? YES/NO