High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4192/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN hagawati, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard Mr. R. De, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. B 2. By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 18% pe r annum for delayed payment of compensation for illegal eviction. Basic facts are not in dispute. Therefore, a detailed factual na 3. rration is considered not necessary. Suffice it to say that on 21.05.2002, offic ials of the Forest Department, Government of Assam carried out an eviction opera tion in the Modghoria area of Guwahati city on the ground that there was encroac hment in the Hengrabari Reserve Forest. In the eviction operation, the Assam typ e house constructed by the petitioner comprising of 9 rooms where he stayed with his family since 1997-98 was demolished.
Legal Reasoning
4. Petitioner alongwith others approached this Court against the ev iction operation by filing WP(C) No. 4034/2002. This Court by the judgment and o rder dated 10.05.2004 allowed the writ petition. It was held by this Court that the land from where the petitioner was evicted is beyond the Hengrabari Reserve Forest and eviction of the petitioner was declared as illegal, arbitrary and wit hout any authority of law. This Court also held that the land in possession of t he petitioner is his patta land. It was therefore held that the impugned evictio n operation had violated petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. 5. In so far payment of compensation for loss suffered was concerne d, this Court left it open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority to take a decision in accordance with law. 6. Petitioner then filed an application before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department seeking compensation of Rs. 11,29,600.00 with interest for loss and damage of property, including household belongings. 7. Government of Assam in the Environment and Forest Department too k a decision to pay the above sum of Rs.11,29,600.00 as compensation for the ill egal eviction and demolition of the house of the petitioner. This was communicat ed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam on 12.05.2005. Sanction f or payment of the said amount was made on 08.07.2005, which had the concurrence of the Finance Department. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was directed to ensure early payment of compensation to avoid any legal complicacy in future. 8. It appears that there was a sudden change in the decision of the Government regarding payment of compensation to the petitioner which ultimately led to issuance of letter dated 04.01.2006 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment and Forest Department and addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It was stated that there was no justific ation to pay compensation to the petitioner and, therefore, such payment was kep t in abeyance.
Decision
9. Petitioner had to approach this Court again by filing WP(C) No. 357/2006. A Single Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 18.03.2008 al lowed the writ petition by quashing the above letter dated 04.01.2006. Consequen tly, it was clarified that necessary steps should be taken by the State responde nts for payment of compensation within 3 (three) months. 10. The aforesaid order was put to challenge by the State by filing Writ Appeal No. 156/2008. By order dated 10.06.2008, a Division Bench of this Co urt admitted the appeal and stayed the order dated 18.03.2008 subject to payment of Rs.6,00,000.00 to the petitioner. There was delay in payment of the aforesai d amount which compelled the petitioner to file a misc. application whereafter t he Court passed order dated 13.08.2008 directing the State respondents to comply with the earlier order for payment of Rs.6,00,000.00 within 22.08.2008 failing which it was clarified that interim order passed earlier would stand vacated. 11. ner. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000.00 was paid to the petitio By the final order dated 28.04.2009, a Division Bench dismissed 12. the appeal filed by the State. It was held as under:- (cid:28) 13. Based on the materials supplied by the petitioner and the verification the reof made by the authorities of the State Govt. including its own opinion and re ports etc. the aforesaid amount was assessed to be adequate compensation payable to the petitioner. However, suddenly a decision was taken to keep the matter in abeyance till the time the petitioner would provide other documents. During the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury, Addl. Advocate General submitted that since t he petitioner could not provide any documents relating to his title over the lan d, the matter was kept in abeyance. 14. As indicated above, the status of the land occupied by the petitioner was no t decisive of compensation payable to him. Once it was held that the land is not forest land and the petitioner was wrongly evicted from the land and his house standing thereon was wrongly demolished, all that was required of the State resp ondents was to assess the extent of damage caused to the property of the petitio ner and to pay compensation on that basis. The said exercise was duly carried ou t by the appellants and the amount was ready to be paid. It was at that stage, s uddenly a decision was taken to keep the matter in abeyance asking the petitione r to produce more documents not relating to the issue involved. (cid:29) 13. Though petitioner submitted application before the respondents t hereafter for payment of the balance amount of compensation of Rs. 5,29,600.00 t he same was not paid. Petitioner also submitted an application dated 07.05.2009 before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Departm ent to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of compensation determined. As the balance amount of compensation was not paid alongwith interest, the present writ petition was filed. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit. Stand 14. taken in the said affidavit is that the Government had sanctioned payment of com pensation of Rs. 11,29,600.00 to the petitioner. After paying an amount of Rs. 6 ,00,000.00 at the first instance, the balance amount of compensation of Rs.5,29, 600.00 was paid to the petitioner on 29.12.2009. Allegation of delay in paying t he compensation has been denied. Respondent No. 4 in his separate affidavit has contested the claim of the petitioner to compensation. Delay in paying compensat ion has also been denied. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is now not op en to the respondents to contend that petitioner is not entitled to compensation . Moreover, once decision was taken by the Government to award compensation to t he petitioner for his illegal and unconstitutional eviction, there was no justif ication in delaying payment of the same. When this Court by order dated 18.03.20 08 had quashed the decision to keep in abeyance the compensation amount payable to the petitioner, the respondents were duty bound to pay the compensation withi n the period of 3 (three) months as was directed by this Court. After expiry of the said period of 3 (three) months, the petitioner was required to be compensat ed by way of payment of compensation with interest. Learned counsel for the peti tioner has placed a number of decisions to support his submissions, which shall be taken note of in the later part of the judgment. Opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pet 16. itioner, Mr. Bhagawati, learned State Counsel submits that the respondents had a vailed the legal remedy of filing writ appeal against the decision of the learne d Single Judge and in the appeal, the Division Bench had stayed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2008 subject to payment of Rs. 6,00,000.00, th ough there was some delay in releasing such payment. He further submits that whe n the writ appeal was dismissed on 28.04.2009, the balance amount was paid there after without much delay on 29.10.2009. As such, no case for payment of interest on delayed compensation has been made out by the petitioner. Writ petition shou ld therefore be dismissed, he submits. 17. ents placed on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also perused the docum 18. As noticed above, the basic facts are not disputed. It is not di sputed that petitioner’s house standing on his own land was demolished in an ill egal eviction carried out on 21.05.2002. As noticed by the Division Bench, compe nsation payable to the petitioner was assessed by the respondents themselves on the basis of the materials supplied by the petitioner which were subjected to ve rification and scrutiny. Once it was held that the petitioner was illegally evic ted and his house was wrongfully demolished, having regard to the constitutional scheme and the rule of law that governs the country, there would be no escape f rom payment of compensation to the aggrieved party so as to compensate him for t he loss that he suffered. As already noticed, respondents had assessed the quantum of comp 19. ensation to be paid to the petitioner at Rs.11,29,600.00. Though a sudden decisi on was taken to keep in abeyance payment of compensation to the petitioner which manifested in the letter dated 04.01.2006, the same was interfered with by this Court and was quashed by order dated 18.03.2008 passed in WP(C) No.357/2006. Th is Court clarified that the compensation determined should be paid within 3 (thr ee) months. In S. K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in (2008) 3 20. SCC 44, which was a case relating to delayed payment of retiral benefits, the Ap ex Court held that even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructio ns or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitut ion of India for delayed payment of retiral benefits by placing reliance on Arti cles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 21. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Justice S. S. Sa ndhawalia (Retd.) & Ors reported in (1994) 2 SCC 240 held that once it is establ ished that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party respon sible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the Court. In that case, the Apex Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court directing payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance of the gratuity amount, payment of which was delayed by almost a year. 22. On the issue of awarding interest for delayed payment of compens ation, the Apex Court in the case of Kalimpong Land & Building Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 720 explained that payment of interest is to make good the loss suffered by the person on delayed payment of the compensation. 23. A Single Bench of this Court in Lohit Chandra Kalita Vs. State o f Assam and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) GLT 203 held that if Government is respons ible for delay, necessarily the appellant would be entitled to the payment of in terest on the delayed payment. In the present case also it is seen from the Government communic 24. ation dated 16.01.2010 addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (A nnexure-13 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner on 08.03.2010) tha t the Finance Department had taken a serious view to the non-disbursement of the balance amount of compensation to the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservat or of Forest was therefore requested to furnish the details for taking necessary action against the defaulting officers for in-ordinate delay in payment of comp ensation. Therefore, there is admission by the State itself that there was delay in payment of compensation. 25. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, this Court is of the unhesitant view that there was delay in payment of compensation and conse quently, the petitioner is entitled to the award of interest for delayed payment of compensation, which would meet the ends of justice. That being the position, respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the compensation amo unt of Rs.11,29,600.00 w.e.f. 04.01.2006 when the decision was taken to withhold payment of compensation till payment of Rs. 6,00,000.00 at the first instance a s well as till the final balance payment was made on 29.12.2009. The interest am ount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. 27. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.