1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3566 OF 1994 1. Thaki Hashya Bhoir, Decd., Thru Lrs : 1a. Manjibai G. Bhagat 1b. Namdeo G. Bhagat 1c. Baliram G. Bhagat 2. Krishna Dunkarya Bhoir, Decd., Thru Lrs : 2a. Baliram K. Bhoir 2b. Parashuram K.Bhoir 2c. Baburao K. Bhoir 2d. Hasubai K. Bhoir All r/o. Motha Khanda, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad, Thru Prakash V. Deodhar R/o. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ... Petitioners Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.4, Panvel, District Raigad ... Respondent Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for the Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1. The Petition challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad in 2 Special Darkhast No.81 of 1989 in L.A.R. No.109 of 1989, disallowing the claim of the petitioners for interest @ 15% p.a. on the compensation payable to the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows: 3. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) on 3 rd February, 1970. The petitioners lands bearing Gat No.591/1, 598/1 and 598/1/5 were notified for acquisition. Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 20th March, 1972. An Award was passed by the respondent on 22nd August, 1985 and a sum of Rs.50,225.80 was determined as the compensation payable to the petitioners. There was a dispute inter se the petitioners regarding the apportionment of the compensation to each of them. That dispute was referred by the respondent to the District Court under Section 30 of the said Act under L.A.R. 3 No.109 of 1985. The Reference was decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners on 29th April, 1989. 4. An application was then filed by the petitioners seeking the deposit of the awarded sum alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 22nd August, 1985 i.e. the date of the award till 27th August, 1986 and @ 15% p.a. from 28th August, 1986 till the date of payment. That Application was filed in July, 1989. Since the amount was not paid, the petitioners thereafter filed Special Darkhast No.81 of 1989 on 20th September, 1989 claiming an amount of Rs.81,122.25 being the compensation with interest @ 15% p.a. from 28th August, 1986. The Darkhast Application was contested by the respondent contending that the reference court had not made any order for interest and therefore the claim of the petitioners should be dismissed. On 3rd September, 1991, the court issued a warrant of attachment. However, that warrant could not be executed and therefore the petitioners filed 4 another application for a fresh warrant on 13th August, 1993. The Reference was disposed of by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag by directing the respondent to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.50,225/- from 5th October, 1985 till 18th October, 1989 i.e. the date on which the respondent deposited the compensation. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the interest granted on the compensation is less than what is payable to the petitioners under the said Act. He points out that the petitioners are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.50,225.85 together with interest @ 9% p.a. under Section 34 from 22nd August, 1985 till 27th August, 1986 and thereafter @ 15% p.a. According to the learned Advocate, a total amount of Rs.30,898.08 is payable as interest. He submits that the amount of interest @ 15% p.a. is also payable from the 5 date when the Special Darkhast No.81 of 1989 was filed till the date of payment. The learned Advocate points out that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, who had disposed of the Reference granting interest only at the flat rate of 9% p.a. has erred by not following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. An affidavit has been filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the respondent herein contending that the petitioners had challenged the Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act by requesting the Collector to make a Reference under Section 18 for enhancement of the compensation. That Reference was decided on 18th July, 1988 in L.A.R. No.73 of 1987. Not being satisfied with the amount of enhancement, the petitioners had preferred First Appeal No.507 of 1989. The State had also challenged the Award in First Appeal No.1060 of 1999. These Appeals were decided alongwith other connected matters on 26th April, 2006. The Appeal of the Government was partly allowed while that 6 of the petitioners was dismissed. The respondent has contended that payment would be made to the petitioners in accordance with the orders of this court in the aforesaid Appeals, modifying the Award dated 18th July, 1988. 7. A perusal of Section 34 of the said Act indicates that when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, interest must be paid @ 9% p.a. so long as the amount is paid or deposited within one year from taking possession of the land. However, thereafter interest is payable @ 15% p.a. till payment is actually made. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was passed on 22nd August, 1985. Therefore, interest would be payable @ 9% p.a. for one year from that date. Admittedly, the amount awarded has not been deposited by the respondent or paid to the petitioners. Therefore, from 28th August, 1986, the amount would be payable with interest @ 15% p.a. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation was referred under 7 Section 30 of the said Act to the trial court and that Reference was disposed of on 10th December, 1993 being Reference No.109 of 1989. Under Section 31 of the said Act, the Collector is expected to tender payment of the compensation awarded once an Award under Section 11 of the said Act is passed, except where certain contingencies mentioned in the Section arise. One such contingency is where there is a dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation. The Collector is then expected to deposit the amount of compensation in the court to which the Reference under Section 18 could be submitted. In the present case, admittedly, there was a dispute regarding apportionment. However, that should not have deterred the Collector from depositing the amount as required under Section 31 of the said Act. Not having done so, the interest payable to the petitioners, one year after the amount of compensation was expected to be deposited, would be payable @ 15% p.a. 8 8. Although the Award has been modified and the Reference Court has granted an enhancement of the amount, in any event, the petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 15% p.a., one year after the Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made, on account of the failure to deposit the compensation payable to the petitioners. 9. In these circumstances, the Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 10. No order as to costs. .......