Barun Mandal vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.Â

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.Â

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“For quashing the memo no. 766 dt. 03.10.2013 issued by the Respondent No. 4 by which the Respondent No. 4 has illegally rejected the claim of

the petitioners for payment of interest on the amount of compensation in accordance with the provision contained in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition

Act which has been illegally withheld by the respondents without any rhyme and reason what so ever and the respondents be directed to make

payment @ 15% on the amount of compensation with respect to the acquired lands belonging to the petitioners in accordance with the provision

contained in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.â€​Â

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land involved in this case was acquired by Notification published on 18.08.1992 and the award was

prepared on 17.08.1993, but immediately after passing of the award, the objection was raised by third party regarding the entitlement of the

petitioners in connection with the awarded amount and accordingly the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and

Reference Case No. 01/2001 was instituted which was ultimately decided on 07.07.2011 and the claim of the 3rd party was ultimately rejected.

Thereafter the petitioners became entitled to receive the amount of the award.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier they have filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 3750 of 2013 for the payment of interest under

Section 34 @ 15% as the amount of award which was given to the petitioners was the awarded amount plus 9% interest for one year. Counsel for the

petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to payment under Section 34 of the aforesaid Act.

This court vide order dated 08.07.2013 disposed of the matter directing the respondent no. 4 of the said case to consider the case of the petitioners

and take a decision. Thereafter the petitioners filed their representation and the claim of the petitioners was rejected vide impugned order as contained

in memo no. 766 dated 3.10.2013.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only reason which has been assigned in the impugned order for non payment of interest under Section

34 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894Â is that the delay in payment of award was not attributable to the State that there was a dispute in connection

with the entitlement of the petitioners and the petitioners ought to have pointed out the objection at the appropriate time. Counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners were never the objector. The objector was the 3rd party. The petitioners have no concern as to how and when the objector

has filed objection. He further submits that as the possession of the property was taken by the respondents under the provisions of Section 34 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the petitioners are entitled for the interest and the same is only a matter of calculation. Neither the Act nor any provision

of law contemplates any further deliberation so far as entitlement of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned.Â

Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that from perusal of the impugned memo no. 766 dated 03.10.2013 it appears from the same

that there is no deliberation on the applicability to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 although the impugned order has been passed by the

land acquisition officer pursuant to the direction passed in the earlier writ petition. He further submits that in the award passed in L.A. Reference

Case No. 01/2001, there is no indication regarding payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894.Â

After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record this court finds that admittedly the land was acquired on 18.08.1992 and

the award was prepared on 17.08.1993 (as per the petitioner)/19.08.94 (as per respondent in supplementary counter affidavit dated 2/12/2015) and

thereafter certain objection was filed by the 3rd party and Ref. Case No. 1/2001 was instituted which was ultimately dismissed and decision in favour

of the petitioners was passed vide order dated 07.07.2011.

From perusal of the impugned order as contained in memo no 766 dated 03.10.2013, it is apparent that the same has been passed pursuant to the

order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3750 of 2013 in which the petitioners had moved this Court for the purpose of payment of interest under

Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the respondent no. 4 being the land acquisition officer was directed to consider the grievance of the

petitioner and pass order in connection with claim of interest.Â

From perusal of impugned order as contained in memo no 766 dated 03.10.2013 passed by the Respondent no. 4 it is clear that the said order deals

with the entitlement of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The only reason for rejection of the claim of interest, which has

been assigned in the impugned order, is that the objection regarding entitlement of the awarded amount was filed later which resulted in payment of

awarded amount to the petitioners and therefore the State is not liable to pay the interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

12 Although the specific date of possession of land by the state is not mentioned in the writ petition, but it is not in dispute that the property in question

has already been taken possession by the respondent state and it is also not in dispute that condition precedent for applicability of section 34 of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable in the instant case.

This court further find that the filing of objection in connection with the entitlement of the award by third party was beyond the control of the

petitioners and accordingly the same cannot be a ground for refusing payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when

admittedly the possession was taken by the respondent state pursuant to acquisition of land. Further the matter was pending before the court in the

Ref. Case No. 1/2001 under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act and was decided only on 07.07.2011. Accordingly, this court finds that the petitioners had

taken all steps which the petitioners could have taken and the amount could be paid to the petitioners only after disposal of the reference case. Further

this court finds that in supplementary affidavit dated 2/12/2015 filed by the respondents, it has been categorically stated in para 9 that during the

pendency of proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, award was not deposited in the court as there was no such direction.Â

Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894Â reads as follows:-Â

“34. Payment of interest-When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land the Collector

shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of (nine per centum) per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall

have been so paid or deposited.Â

 [Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is

taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of

compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.]Â

From perusal of section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it is apparent that interest under section 34 is payable if the compensation is not paid or

deposited pursuant to the award and the possession of the property is taken pursuant to the acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is

apparent that the payment of interest under Section 34 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is only a matter of calculation and it is automatic if the condition

precedent for applicability of the said section is satisfied in a given case.Â

This court is of the considered view that the payment of interest has to be made if the condition precedent in Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act,

1894 is satisfied in the instant case. There is no dispute regarding applicability of section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the only reason

assigned in the impugned order for denial of interest is that the delay in making payment of compensation is not attributable to the state. Accordingly,

this court finds that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 is apparently perverse and illegal and is accordingly set-aside.

As the date of taking possession of the property by the state pursuant to acquisition of the property under Land Acquisition Act ,1894Â is not

clear from the records of this writ petition, the respondent no 4Â is directed to calculate the interest as per Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act ,1894

from the date of possession till the date of payment of award to the petitioners and take all steps for payment of the same to the petitioners upon

proper identification within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will be open to the respondent to adjust the

portion of the amount of interest, if any, which has been paid to the petitioners as per Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

This writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observation and direction.  Â

     Â