Faqir Singh and others vs State and Others

Petitioners' land situate in village Satwari, Jammu, was acquired for extension of the Jammu Air Port Years back. It appears that the collector

passed two awards in 1972 and 1981 respectively awarding compensation to them. In the first case, however, possession of land was allegedly

taken over from them on 1751972 but out of the awarded amount, the balance amount of Rs. 41,518.00 was not paid to them till January 1984

due to some dispute surrounding their title over the land. The second award was passed for Rs.2,18,500.00 but the amount was paid to them on

931985 when possession of the land was taken over by the collector on 8121981.

Petitioner claim interest on the belated compensation paid in terms of Sec. 35 of the land Acquisition Act. Their case is that respondents are

under statutory obligation to pay 6% interest on the awarded amount of compensation for their default in paying or depositing the compensation on

or before taking over the possession of the land. Their counsel Mr. Johal also cited AIR 1981 SC 969, AIR 1970 A.P.262 and AIR 1928 P.C.

290, in support.

Respondents were on notice as far back as on 3061986. Even though they came to be represented by their counsel from time to time, they have

not chosen to resist this petition by filling any counter or producing any record in support of their case. The result is that the averments made in the

writ petition go unrefuted and willy nilly would have to be accepted.

Sec.35 of the land acquisition Act deals with the payment of interest and provides that:

When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, Collector shall pay the amount

awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of so taking possession on till it shall have been so paid or deposited,

The terms of the provision are so clear that it does not require much effort to reach its true interpretation. It creates statutory obligation on the

collector to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum where he has failed to pay or deposited the compensation on or before taking over the

possession of the land and correspondingly creates a statutory claim for interest in the claimant. The rationale behind is that the claimant deserves

to be paid the solatium of interest once he is deprived the possession of land.

The section makes the payment of interest mandatory by using the word ""Shall"" and further makes it an integral part of the compensation

payable subject to satisfying of the conditions laid down therein. The interest becomes payable from the date of taking over the possession till the

date the compensation is paid or deposited in a case where the collector has failed to pay or deposit on or before taking over the possession of

land. The liability to pay interest is Coterminus with payment or deposit of compensation and arises out of the collector's failure which must be

apparent, deliberate and intentional. If the dealy to deposit or to pay can be attributed to claimant, the liability ceases. The collector's obligation is

either to deposit or to pay the amount and where he deposited the amount well within time, he would have discharged his obligation even though

the amount is not paid to the claimant (See AIR 1957 SC 202, AIR 1961SC908andAIR 1965Mysore 72).

I have gone through the Judgments cited by Mr. Johal which, however, are not relevant to the point in issue. In State of Assam V. Jatinder

Kumar (AIR 1981 SC 969), the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of a waiver of interest by the claimants and in AIR 1970 A.P. 262, a

full Bench of the Andhra pradesh High Court was engaged in interpreting the expression"" from the date of taking over possession "" occurring in the

relevant section to find out whether the possession was required to be taken over under the land acquisition Act or otherwise.

Applying all this to the present case, it remains to be seen whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 6% in the facts

and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute about the dates when the possession of their land was taken over and when they were paid

compensation. It is not, however, dear whether the collector had deposited the compensation amount on or before the dates of taking over

possession of the land. But, in case the official record shows that he had deposited it before taking over the possession of land, petitioners would

be straightaway disentitled. Otherwise he would be under an obligation to pay. Proceeding on the assumption that he did not deposit the

compensation amount within the prescribed statutory deadline, it would still remain to be seen whether petitioners would be entitled to receive

interest in both cases. lam afraid it would not be possible to do so considering the totality of circumstances and on balancing the scales of equity.

This is so because in the first case, out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 1,47,487.40 they were paid the whole amount except

Rs.41,518.43 which appears to have been withheld as their determination of title was pending adjudication before the District Judge and the High

Court till 821985. The balance amount, it seems was not paid to them on or before taking over possession of the land for this reason. Therefore, it

would be inequitable to direct grant of interest to them on the balance amount of Rs.41,514.43 at the rate of 6% from May 1972 to January 1984

in this case. However, there is no impediment in allowing their claim in respect of the second award in which payment of compensation appears to

have been withheld for no reason or justification.

I consequently allow this petition partly and direct respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner on the compensation

amount of Rs.2,18,500.00 only in case of the second award from 8121981 to 931985, in case this amount was not deposited by the collector on

or before 8121981 when he took over the possession of the land.