W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 1 of 10 $~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27th September, 2011 + W.P.(C) 537/2010 PROMILA GUPTA ......Petitioner + W.P.(C) 5886/2010 RAJ BALA & ORS ......Petitioners -VERSUS- GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents AND + . W.P.(C) 6984/2011 SANJEEV KUMAR ......Petitioner + W.P.(C) 6985/2011 ISHWAR SINGH .....Petitioner + W.P.(C) 6986/2011 KARAMVIR & ORS .....Petitioners + W.P.(C) 6987/2011 BHARAT SINGH & ANR ......Petitioners + W.P.(C) 6988/2011 ROHTAS ......Petitioner + W.P.(C) 6989/2011 FATEH SINGH & ORS ......Petitioners + W.P.(C) 6990/2011 BALLU RAM & ORS ......Petitioners + W.P.(C) 6991/2011 ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS ......Petitioners W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 2 of 10 + W.P.(C) 6992/2011 PREM SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners -VERSUS- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR ..... Respondents Present: Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv. for petitioner(s) in W.P.(C) No.s 6984-92 all of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 5886/2010 Ms. Sumi Anand for Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. for petitioner in W.P.(C) 537/2010 Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomidi Kiran & Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-1 along with Mr. Lal Singh, LAC (NW) in all. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav, Adv. for UOI/LAC in W.P.(C) No.s 6984-92 all of 2011 Ms. Pooja Bahuguna for Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for DDA in W.P.(C) No.s 6984-92 all of 2011 Ms. Renuka Arora, Adv. for DSIIDC in W.P.(C) No. 537/2010 CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may not necessary be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? not necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported not necessary in the Digest? W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 3 of 10 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. W.P.(C) 537/2010 & W.P.(C) 5886/2010 seek mandamus for payment of the compensation for acquisition of land under the Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP) announced by the Land & Building Deptt. of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 1st October, 2008. Though in W.P.(C) Nos.6984 to 6992 all of 2011, besides the said relief, a relief for payment of the award amount was also claimed but the counsel for the petitioners state that the same has been since received and now does not survive; however the said writ petitioners also seek direction for payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the award amount from the date the said amount was deposited by the DDA with the office of the respondent Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and till the date of its disbursement. 2. I will first take up the aspect of claim for interest. 3. Though at first blush, it appeared that the claim for interest should have been a subject matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the counsel for the petitioners has contended that Section 18 envisages disputes as to compensation till the making of the award in as much as the reference has to be sought within 42 days from the date of service of notice of making of the award. It is contended W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 4 of 10 that the claim for interest made in the writ petitions is for the reason of the delay in making the payment after the award and particularly when DDA, for whose benefit land was acquired, had deposited the awarded amount with the LAC. It is thus stated that the claim for post award interest cannot be subject matter of reference under Section 18 of the Act. The senior counsel for the respondent LAC also does not controvert the said position. 4. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that under Section 23(1A) of the Act, interest on the compensation as per market rate from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of award or of taking possession, whichever is earlier is provided; that the purport was to compensate the owner of the land for the delays; that the Act does not provide for any interest for the period of delay between date of making of award and taking over of the possession. It is stated that in the present case the award was made on 16th February, 2009, the compensation amount was deposited by the respondent DDA with the respondent LAC in November, 2009 but possession taken only in June, 2011 and in pursuance to the order in W.P.(C)5886/2010 and the award amount disbursed only in August, 2011. It is contended that the W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 5 of 10 respondent LAC cannot be permitted to enjoy the amounts deposited by the respondent DDA and is liable to pay interest thereon as claimed. 5. On enquiry from the counsel for the petitioners as to why the petitioners should be held entitled to interest for the said delay even if any since the petitioners continued to enjoy the benefits and possession of the land, the counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners could not fully enjoy the land even though continued in possession thereof since under threat of acquisition they could not be expected to make any improvements etc. on the land and thus could not fully beneficially enjoy the land. On further enquiry, as to what improvements could have been made, the land being agricultural, the counsel states that the irrigation facilities for better yield from the land could have been improved and improvement whereof was not made owing to the sword of acquisition hanging over their head. 6. On further enquiry from the counsel for the petitioners, that acquisition being in the nature of compulsory exaction of land, as to how in the absence of any statutory provision the claim for interest can be made, the counsel for the petitioners refers to Ram Chand v. Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44 (para 22 & 26) to contend that interest beyond W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 6 of 10 what is provided in the Act can also be awarded. 7. Per contra, the senior counsel for the respondent LAC has contended that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Udey Singh v. Union of India 112 (2004) DLT 739 where it has been held that in the absence of any provision in the Act for payment of interest from the date of award, if no possession is taken, the Courts cannot fill up the gap and have no option but to reject the claim for payment of interest for the said period. He also contends that the interpretation by the counsel for the petitioners of the judgment in Ram Chand (supra) is erroneous and the Supreme Court has not laid down any such proposition as is contended. It is further contended, that the Supreme Court in Ram Chand had only directed payment of additional amount; that Ram Chand pertains to the pre 1984 amendment period and therefore in any case would not be applicable to the position as prevailing now. 8. The counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder contends that binding judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Chand was not noticed by the Division Bench in Udey Singh (supra) and the judgment in Udey Singh is thus per incuriam. He has also contended that the Division Bench did not W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 7 of 10 consider the devaluation of the rupee and the entitlement of the land owner whose land has been compulsorily acquired to compensation of the value as on the date of the Notification. 9. Having perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Udey Singh, I am of the view that the same completely covers the claim made by the petitioners for interest for the period between the date of the award and the date of taking over of the possession and it is not for this Bench to form a different opinion. If according to the counsel for the petitioners, any relevant arguments remained to be considered in Udey Singh, the same have to be raised before the Division Bench only and not before this Bench. Thus the claim for interest made in W.P.(C) Nos. 6984-6992 all of 2011 cannot be entertained and is dismissed. 10. As far as the claim for SRP is concerned, the respondents in W.P.(C) 537/2010 & W.P.(C) 5886/2010 have been repeatedly given time for taking instructions with respect thereto. The senior counsel for the respondent LAC today also states that since a dispute had arisen as to the solatium and interest on the SRP, the same has been referred to the Cabinet of the Delhi Government for decision and only thereafter payment can be released. W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 8 of 10 11. It is further contended that in terms of the order dated 1st October, 2008 announcing the SRP, the land owners desirous of availing of the same were required to make an application therefor. It is contended that without making any such application, the land owners cannot be held to be entitled to seek any relief for grant of such SRP. 12. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners controverts that there was any such requirement. It is contended that the petitioners have not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act within the prescribed time in the light of the said SRP, and as per Clause 7 of the order dated 1st October, 2008 which is as under:- “7. The Special Rehabilitation Package should be accepted by individual farmers and made applicable in each case only, if they do not mount a challenge to the award already announced by the LAC. If they have challenged the award they must withdraw the petition to avail of the benefit of the Special Rehabilitation Package.” are required to make statement only at the time of receiving payment under the SRP. 13. The order dated 1st October, 2008 does not provide for any application as contended to be made; rather Clause 7 aforesaid indicates W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 9 of 10 that even those who may have challenged the award are entitled to avail of the SRP upon withdrawing the challenge earlier made by them. Moreover in view of the categorical statement of the counsel for the petitioners that none of the petitioners have challenged the award, the delay in implementation of the SRP is inexplicable. 14. Need is not felt to keep the petitions pending on this aspect. The only relief possible is to direct the respondents to offer the payments under the SRP in a time bound fashion. The petitions in so far as claiming the relief of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the SRP announced on 1st October, 2008 is concerned, are disposed of with a direction to the respondent LAC to offer payment under the SRP announced on 1st October, 2008 on or before 1st December, 2011. 15. The senior counsel for the respondent LAC has contended that the payment should be directed as per the decision to be taken by the Cabinet. It is further contended that the Cabinet is to take a decision as to whether the SRP is to contain the elements of solatium and interest which in terms of the order dated 1st October, 2008 were to be as per Rules. 16. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the SRP announced and on the basis whereof the petitioners have not sought reference, having W.P.(C) No.537/2010 Page 10 of 10 mentioned that the elements of award namely solatium and interest would be allowed as per Rules, the Cabinet cannot now change the decision. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 537/2010 further contends that the respondent LAC had appeared in person before the Court on 18th April, 2011 and had assured that the compensation will be released on or before 16th May, 2011. It is further stated that only relief in the said writ petition was of compensation under the SRP. 17. This Court today can issue the direction only in terms of order dated 1st October, 2008 before this Court. If the said order is re- called/reviewed, the parties will have appropriate remedies with respect thereto. 18. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 pp.