Case: Union of India &amp; Another Vs. Pushpavathi &amp; Others

4. The first appellant is the Union of India through Secretary, Revenue Department, Pondicherry and the second appellant is the Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer. The appellants herein were respondents whereas the respondents herein, who are the landowners, were writ petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Government of Pondicherry on 22.12.1986 issued a Notification seeking to acquire land bearing Survey No.2 Pt. of an extent of Hec. 83 Ares 50 Cen situated in village Pillaichavadi, Pondicherry for public purpose, namely, establishment of Central University (Phase-V). This was followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 12.03.1987. The acquired land included the lands belonging to the respondents herein6. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an Award (No.2/1987) under Section 11 of the Act on 01.06.1987 and determined the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.318/- per Are7. One landowner-Govindammal, whose land was also acquired under the same notification, dissatisfied with the rate of compensation awarded by the LAO, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for re-determination of the rate of compensation for his acquired land. The Reference Court, by its award dated 09.05.1989 in reference case No. L.A.O.P. No.337/88 enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land from Rs.318/- per are to Rs.1000/- per Kuzhi (Rs. 1868/- per Are).8. The respondents (landowners) having come to know of the passing of the award by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation referred above filed applications under Section 28A of the Act to the Collector (LAO) on 08.08.1991 for re- determination of compensation payable to them for their acquired land in the aforementioned acquisition proceedings9. Though the Collector made an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 28A of the Act, on the applications made by the respondents but no final orders were passed. The respondents, therefore, filed writ petitions (W.P No. 10649 of 1996 etc.) in the High Court at Madras10. The High Court, by order dated 19.08.1998 allowed the writ petitions in part and directed the Collector to dispose of the applications filed by the respondents under Section 28A of the Act. The Collector accordingly disposed of the applications by passing orders on different dates between 15.11.1994 and 22.11.1994 and re-determined the compensation payable to the respondents11. The respondents, having noticed that the Collector though re-determined the compensation but had failed to award interest on compensation under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act, felt aggrieved of the orders of the Collector and filed a representation to the Collector praying therein for award of interest on the compensation. By order dated 14.12.1998, the Collector rejected the respondents representation.12. Felt aggrieved, the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court and challenged therein the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.12.1998 of the Collector declining to award interest on the compensation determined by him under Section 28-A proceedings.13. The appellants herein, who were the respondents in the said writ petitions, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the respondents. Their main contention was that the remedy of the respondents herein in such case lies in applying for making a reference to the Civil Court as provided under Section 28A (3) read with Section 18 of the Act. It was contended that if the respondents (landowners) were aggrieved by the order of the Collector, which declined to award the interest on the compensation, their appropriate remedy was to seek a reference to the Civil Court as provided under Section 28A(3) of the Act, it being a statutory remedy available to them under the Act but not in filing the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution14. The Single Judge by order dated 13.04.1999, overruled the preliminary objection, allowed the writ petitions on merits and awarded the interest as claimed by the respondents. The Union of India, being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, filed intra court appeals before the Division Bench. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals and affirmed the order of the Single Judge (Writ Court).

Reasoning:
23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeals. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court appears to be legal and proper.33. From the perusal of the aforementioned sections, it is clear that while determining the compensation payable to the landowners, the Collector is required to take into consideration three factors, which are specified under Section 11 whereas the Court is required to take into consideration six factors specified under Section 23(1) of the Act. These factors vary from case to case34. Likewise, we find that Sections 28 and 34, which deal with payment of interest on the awarded sum, are attracted in the case where the conditions specified under the respective sections are fulfilled by the landowner in his case35. Similarly, the reference to the Court under Section 18 is made by the Collector only when there is a dispute as to the measurement of the land or to the amount of the compensation or as to the person(s) to whom the compensation is payable and lastly, regarding the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested in claiming compensation36. In our considered opinion, the dispute relating to non-award of the interest to the landowners, whether under Section 28 or Section 34 is not a dispute, which falls under Section 18 or/and 28A(3) of the Act. In other words, a reference under Section 18 can only be made by the Collector in respect of those issues, which are specified under Section 1837. A dispute relating to non-award of interest payable to the landowners under Section 28 or/and Section 34 of the Act is not specified under Section 18 and hence it is not capable of being referred by the Collector to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. It is also for the reason that payment of interest is statutory in character and being statutory, it is mandatory for payment once conditions specified under Sections 28 or/and 34 are fulfilled38. It is true that once the interest is awarded by the Court under section 28 or by the Collector under Section 34 of the Act, it becomes the part of the award. However, it is hardly of any significance and has no bearing for deciding the question of remedy to challenge issue relating to the non-award of interest39. As mentioned above, such issue is required to be decided keeping in view the wording of Section 18 of the Act, which specifies the issues on which the reference can be made to the Court and non-award of interest is not the issue specified in Section 18 of the Act. In this view of the matter, no reference can be made to the Court to decide the issue of non-award of interest under Section 18 of the Act40. The aforementioned reasoning, in our view, equally applies to the cases falling under Section 28A(2) and (3) of the Act because any dispute, whether arising under Section 11 or 28A(2), is referable to the Civil Court in reference by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act.41. This Court explained the object and scope of Sections 28 and 34 succinctly in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262     in the following words:16. There is inherent evidence in the wording of Sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest at 6 per cent per annum.... The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award-decree as prepared under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 of the Act. Similarly Section 28 provides the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest. Here also the award under Section 23(1) read with Section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest to be paid under Section 34 and also under Section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under Section 23(1) of the Act. Whereas the interest, if payable under the Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the Act, the amount of compensation under Section 23(1) which is an award-decree under Section 26, is subject to the rules of Procedure and Limitation. The rules of procedure are hand-maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come in the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act.43. This Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Mahender Singh & Anr. , (2009) 5 SCC 339     has also taken the same view, which we have taken above, in the following words:12. In view of what has been indicated above, the conclusion is irresistible that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution there is no scope for direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by either Section 28 or 34.45. Learned counsel for the appellants did not question the impugned judgment on merits, therefore, we need not examine the issue involved in the writ petitions on merits46. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these appeals.44. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the High Court was right in entertaining the writ petitions filed by the respondents (landowners) and was eventfully right in allowing the same on merits.42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the dispute in relation to non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in writ petition. In other words, reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court.42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the dispute in relation to non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in writ petition. In other words, reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court.