1. Lanka Alda, son of late Badu Ho, 2. Birsa Alda, son of late v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 3. The Special
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5438 of 2010 1. Lanka Alda, son of late Badu Ho, 2. Birsa Alda, son of late Lakhan Ho, Both the petitioners are resident of village – Harila, P.O. & P.S. Barkunia, District – Singhbhum West … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Swarn Rekha Project, Office at Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Singhbhum … Respondents (East) … With W.P.(C) No. 5444 of 2010 1. Dumbi Alda, son of Mutra Ho, 2. Dibar Alda, son of Mutra Ho, Both resident of village – Harila, P.O. Barkunia, P.S. Muffasil, Petitioners District – Singhbhum West Versus … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Swarn Rekha Project, … Respondents Adityapur, Singhbhum (East) … CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Ms. Shail Lakra, Advocate : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No. 5438 of 2010) Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 5444 of 2010) --- 04/16.01.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) Ms. Shail Lakra, is present. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, is also present in W.P.(C). No.5438 of 2010. 3. Mr. Lal Gyan Ranjan Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondents is present in W.P.(C). No.5444 of 2010. 4. W.P.(C). No.5438 of 2010 has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For quashing the order dated 16.7.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.01/10-11 by Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West whereby and where under the claim of the petitioners for payment of interest in pursuant to the provisions of section 34 of land acquisition Act has been rejected. (ii) For a direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the amount of interest at the rate of 15% over the total amount of Rs.3,45,204/38 in view of the provisions of the section 34 of land acquisition Act.” 5. W.P.(C). No.5444 of 2010 has been filed for the following reliefs: 2 “(i) For quashing the order dated 16.7.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.2/10-11 by Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West whereby and where under the claim of the petitioners for payment of interest in pursuant to the provisions of section 34 of land acquisition Act has been rejected. (ii) For a direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the amount of interest at the rate of 15% over the total amount of Rs.43138/86 in view of the provisions of the section 34 of land acquisition Act.” 6. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C). No.5639 of 2008 seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of statutory interest on the compensation amount under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said writ petition
Decision
was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2009 enabling the petitioners to make representation before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, who was directed to pass a reasoned order within the stipulated time frame. Pursuant thereto, the impugned orders dated 16.07.2010 have been passed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the following relevant dates in connection with the land acquisition involved in the present cases are not in dispute: The date of notification i.e., 30.09.1986 under Section 4 of the Land and Acquisition Act Date of award i.e., 30.04.1987 and, Date of possession dated 22.12.1988 8. Learned counsel submits that the amount of Rs.3,49,235.25 and Rs. 43,138.86 in W.P.(C). No.5438 of 2010 and W.P.(C). No.5444 of 2010 respectively were paid vide cheques dated 16.04.2005 as recorded in the impugned orders, whose details are as follows: W.P.(C). No.5438 of 2010 W.P.(C). No.5444 of 2010 Total Amount = Rs.3,49,235.25 Total Amount = Rs.43,138.86 Principal Rs.2,55,850.00 Principal Rs.31,603.55 awarded amount awarded amount Solatium – 30% Rs.76,755.00 Solatium – Rs.9,481.07 30% Interest @ 12% Rs. 16,630.00 Interest – 12% Rs. 2,054.24 9. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly the compensation amount in the present cases was neither deposited in the court nor in the treasury. The last portion of the impugned orders 3 clearly reflects that the amount was deposited in the nationalized bank account of District Land Acquisition Officer. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are not disputing the quantum of compensation. The petitioners are only claiming the statutory interest and merely because the amount given to the petitioners was accepted without any objection or protest, the same has no bearing in the matter as there was no occasion for the petitioners to protest the quantum of compensation. 10. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orders dated 16.07.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for statutory interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are perverse and fit to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners had approached the authority for taking the compensation after several years. However, it is not in dispute from the side of the respondents and it has been recorded in the impugned orders also that the amount of compensation was deposited in the bank account of District Land Acquisition Officer and accordingly, the compensation was neither deposited in the court nor in the treasury. 12. On 12.01.2023, the case was taken up in absence of the petitioners and a reference was made to judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal) and the respondents had sought for adjournment to examine the aforesaid judgment. During the course of hearing, learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that they have gone through the judgment, but they are not in a position to dispute the claim of the petitioners. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the aforesaid dates as recorded above are not in dispute. Admittedly, the compensation amount has been paid to the petitioners and they are fighting for statutory interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. By the impugned orders, learned Deputy Commissioner has rejected the claim of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition 4 Act, 1894 on the ground that the petitioners had received the amount without any objection or protest and that the predecessors of the petitioners neither appeared before the concerned authority for receiving payment during the date fixed under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e., 16.07.1987 to 21.07.1987 at Chaliyama Camp nor they appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for receiving the payment and after the death of the father, the petitioners moved Special Land Acquisition officer and the amount was received by them on 16.04.2005 without any protest. 15. This Court is of the considered view that the reason cited by the learned Deputy Commissioner in the impugned orders to deny interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are contrary to the provision of law. Admittedly, the quantum of compensation is not in dispute and the claim of payment of statutory interest on the compensation has been denied by the respondents by the impugned orders. Admittedly, the compensation amount was neither deposited in the court nor in the treasury and it was deposited with District Land Acquisition Officer in his nationalized bank account. 16. The liability of payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was, interalia, considered in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments including the aforesaid judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 (supra). Para 118 and 119 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under:- 118. Section 31(1) enacts that the Collector has to tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay such amount to a person interested in the land, unless he (the Collector) is prevented from doing so, for any of the three contingencies provided by sub-section (2). Section 31(2) provides for deposit of compensation in court in case the State is prevented from making payment in the event of: (i) refusal to receive it; (ii) if there be no person competent to alienate the land; (iii) if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation; or (iv) if there is dispute as to the apportionment. In such exigencies, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. 119. Section 34 deals with a situation where any of the obligations under Section 31 is not fulfilled i.e. when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited; and after one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest payable shall 5 be @ 15% p.a. The scheme of the 1894 Act clearly makes it out that when the award is passed under Section 11, thereafter possession is taken as provided under Section 16, land vests in the State Government. Under Section 12(2), a notice of the award has to be issued by the Collector. Taking possession is not dependent upon payment. Payment has to be tendered under Section 31 unless the Collector is “prevented from making payment”, as provided under Section 31(2). In case of failure under Section 31(1) or 31(3), also Collector is not precluded from making payment, but it carries interest under Section 34 @ 9% for the first year from the date it ought to have been paid or deposited and thereafter @ 15%. Thus, once land has been vested in the State under Section 16, in case of failure to pay the compensation under Section 31(1) to deposit under Section 31(2), compensation has to be paid along with interest, and lapse of due acquisition……………………..” to non-compliance of Section 31, is no there 17. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that there has been no payment or deposit of compensation in terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the unclaimed /unpaid /unaccepted amount was neither deposited in court nor before the treasury and it remained in the bank account of the District Land Acquisition Officer which was paid to the petitioners on 16.04.2005. Merely because the petitioners/their father did not appear in the camp way back in the year 1987 for receiving payment, that does not entitle the respondents to deny statutory interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court is also of the considered view that receipt of payment of compensation without protest also has no bearing in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioners are not disputing the quantum of compensation, but are claiming statutory interest on the compensation amount in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court is of the considered view that while making the payment of compensation, it was the duty of the concerned authority to pay with statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order denying the claim of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are accordingly set aside. 19. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa for passing appropriate order on the point of calculation of interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and pay the same to the petitioners after due verification 6 within a period of two month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with representation and a copy of the writ records to be filed by the petitioners. 20. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)