Madan Gopal Arora (died) through LRs and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.—Civil Writ Petition No. 14206 of 1992, ''Madan Gopal Arora (died) through LRs and others Versus State of

Haryana and others'', Civil Writ Petition No. 14792 of 1992, ''Chander Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others'' and Civil Writ

Petition No. 596 of 1993, ''Smt. Shanno Devi and others Versus State of Haryana and others'', involve common questions of law and fact and are

directed against a common order, therefore, these three writ petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order being passed in Civil Writ

Petition No. 14206 of 1992, as such, facts are being taken from this writ petition. The petitioners, having been successful in draw of lots were

allotted residential plots of different sizes and letters of allotment were issued in their favour. They deposited 25% of the total price of the plots and

also paid the requisite instalments. However, the petitioners received notice dated 28.08.1992 (Annexure P-3) calling upon them to pay additional

price, over and above the prices already paid by them, on account of enhancement of compensation of acquisition cost as awarded by the

Reference Court, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), along with interest @ 15% per annum. Along

with, the notice of demand dated 28.08.1992 (Annexure P-3), a calculation sheet was also communicated to the petitioners, wherein details of the

additional cost and interest etc. were indicated. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rate of interest, as mentioned in the aforesaid communication.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the respondents have paid interest @ 15% per

annum to the land owners, whose lands were acquired for the purpose of carving out of the plots allotted to the petitioners and that being so, the

petitioners are liable to pay the interest @ 15% per annum.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

Though, it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents being responsible for the delay of deposit of compensation amount, the

petitioners cannot be held liable to pay interest for the period of delay but in the written statement, it has been specifically stated that the references

u/s 18 of the Act, were decided on 09.01.1991 and 07.10.1991 and the amount of enhanced compensation was deposited by the respondents on

24.12.1991 and 22.05.1992. That being so, contention of the petitioners that the respondents have delayed deposit of the compensation amount

cannot be accepted because as regards the calculation-sheet appended with the impugned notice, no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out on

behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, no case is made out for interference with the impugned notice dated 28.08.1992 (Annexure P-3). However, as

the petitioners have been litigating before this Court, it is deemed appropriate to grant them six months'' time to deposit the additional price, as

demanded vide impugned notice dated 28.08.1992 (Annexure P-3), and to direct the respondents to charge simple interest @ 15% per annum for

the period of delay in depositing the same. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction.