Supreme Court of India
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, SELU, DISTRICT PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. on 15 January 2020
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R. 84
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
ATHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT,SELU, DISTRICT PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. ETC.B(Civil Appeal Nos. 246-255 of 2020)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Statutory benefits and interest for thedelayed period in approaching the High Court – Respondents/Coriginal claimants claimed parity in compensation with other landowners – There was a huge delay of five and a half years inpreferring the appeals by the original claimants before the HighCourt challenging the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt – The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation atDpar with the other land owners/claimants and condoned the delayof five and a half years – Appellants contended that there was ahuge delay and same was not required to be condoned by the HighCourt – Appellants further contended that the High Court oughtnot have awarded the statutory benefits and the interest for thedelayed period – On appeal, held: Considering the fact that in otherEmatters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the delayand entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount ofcompensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose landswere acquired for the same project vide the same notification –There was no fault with the order passed by the High Court inFcondoning delay – Further, the order condoning the delay hadattained finality as the same was not challenged – Insofar as thestatutory benefits and the interest for the delayed period isconcerned, while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, theSupreme Court in various cases has denied the interest on theenhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay inGapproaching the High Court – Merely because at the time ofcondoning delay no such condition was imposed that the claimantsshall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation for the period of delay, the appellant who was H
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, v.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with liability to pay theinterest for the period of delay, which was not at all attributed tothem – Under the circumstances, the order of the High Court modifiedto the extent denying the interest to the respondents/originalclaimants on the enhanced amount of compensation for the periodof delay in preparing appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that there was a huge delay offive and a half years in preferring the appeals before the HighCourt challenging the judgment and award passed by theReference Court. However, considering the fact that in othermatters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned thedelay and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount ofcompensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose landswere acquired for the same project vide the same notification.Therefore, as such, no fault can be found with the order passedby the High Court condoning the delay. It is required to be notedthat as such the order condoning the delay has attained finality asthe same was not challenged by the appellant at the relevant time.[Para 4] [88-D-F]
2. Whether for the delayed period the claimants shall beentitled to the statutory benefits and the interest under the LandAcquisition Act?
2.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra. In the case ofDhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, while condoningthe delay in preferring the appeal before this Court, whileenhancing the amount of compensation at par with other similarlysituated land owners, this Court has denied the interest on theenhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay inapproaching the High Court by way of LPAs. Similar view isexpressed by this Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v. SpecialDeputy Collector (LA) and while condoning the delay in preferringthe appeal, this Court has denied the interest for the period ofdelay. Merely because at the time of condoning the delay nosuch condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitledto the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aperiod of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public bodycannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for theperiod of delay, which is not at all attributed to them. Under thecircumstances, the common impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court awarding the interest on the enhanced amountof compensation for the period of delay in preferring the appealsBdeserve to be quashed and set aside and the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court is required to bemodified to the aforesaid extent. [Para 4.1] [88-G-H; 89-A-C]
Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana (2014)14 SCC 127 ; K. Subbarayudu v. Special DeputyCCollector (LA) (2017) 12 SCC 840 : [2017] 6 SCR 524– relied on.
Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari (1996) 1SCC 311 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 787 ; Collector (LA) v.Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 : [1987] 2 SCR 387 – referredDto.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 246-255 of 2020FFrom the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First AppealNos. 4083-4092 of 2016.
Uday B. Dube, Advs. for the Appellant.
GSushil Karanjkar, Sachin Patil, Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Advs. forthe Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
6
Decisions referred to
In this index
4
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal Nos. 4083-4092 of 2016 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the said firstappeals preferred by the original claimants and has enhanced the amountof compensation for the lands acquired, the acquiring body – TheExecutive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project has preferred the presentappeals.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant hasvehemently submitted that as such there was a delay of five and a halfyears in preferring the first appeals. It is submitted that assuming thatthe High Court is justified in enhancing the amount of compensation atpar with the other land owners/claimants, as there was a huge delay offive and a half years, the High Court ought not to have saddled theinterest liability for the period of delay upon the appellants. It is submittedthat for the delayed period the claimants shall also not be entitled to anystatutory benefits.
2.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate that as such therewas a huge delay of five and a half years and therefore as such thesame was not required to be condoned by the High Court. It is submittedthat in any case the High Court is not justified in granting the statutorybenefits and the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation forthe period of delay. In support of his above submission, learned counselappearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decisionsof this Court in the cases of Market Committee, Hodal v. KrishanMurari, (1996) 1 SCC 311; Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC107; Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14SCC 127; and K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (LA),(2017) 12 SCC 840.
3. While opposing the present appeals, learned Advocate appearingon behalf of the respondents/original claimants has vehemently submittedthat as such the original claimants claimed the parity in compensationwith other land owners. It is submitted that at the time when the High B
C
D
EF
G
ACourt condoned the delay, the same was not conditional, namely, to denythe statutory benefits and the interest for the interregnum period – delayedperiod. It is submitted that the order condoning the delay had attainedfinality and therefore subsequently it is not open for the appellant tosubmit that the High Court ought not to have awarded the statutorybenefits and the interest for the delayed period.B
3.1 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing onbehalf of the respondents/original claimants that even otherwise as perthe settled proposition of law, all claimants/land owners are entitled tothe same compensation for the land acquired for the same project videthe same notification.
C
3.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss thepresent appeals.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.
D
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute in thepresent appeals is only with respect to award of statutory benefits andinterest for the delayed period. It is not in dispute that there was a hugedelay of five and a half years in preferring the appeals before the HighCourt challenging the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceECourt. However, considering the fact that in other matters the delaywas condoned, the High Court condoned the delay and entertained theappeals and enhanced the amount of compensation at par with otherland owners/claimants whose lands were acquired for the same projectvide the same notification. Therefore, as such, no fault can be foundwith the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay. It isFrequired to be noted that as such the order condoning the delay hasattained finality as the same was not challenged by the appellant at therelevant time. Be that as it may, the issue which is required to beconsidered is, whether for the delayed period the claimants shall be entitledto the statutory benefits and the interest under the Land AcquisitionAct?G
4.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra. In the case of DhirajSingh (supra), while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal beforethis Court, while enhancing the amount of compensation at par withother similarly situated land owners, this Court has denied the interest on H
the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay inapproaching the High Court by way of LPAs. Similar view is expressedby this Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu (supra) and whilecondoning the delay in preferring the appeal, this Court has denied theinterest for the period of delay. Merely because at the time of condoningthe delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not beentitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for theperiod of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body cannot besaddled with the liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, whichis not at all attributed to them. Under the circumstances, the commonimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court awarding theinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delayin preferring the appeals deserve to be quashed and set aside and theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court isrequired to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
4.2 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, allthese appeals are allowed in part. The common impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is modified to the extent denying theinterest to the respondents/original claimants on the enhanced amountof compensation for the period of delay in preferring the appeals. Restof the judgment and award passed by the High Court is confirmed. Nocosts.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals partly allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H