Review Pet./4/2021 of THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF AND ORS. Vs THE SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM AND ORS. on 7 October 2021

1. The instant Review Petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a review of the Order, dated 14.09.2021, in C.M.C. No.04 of 2021.

2. While urging that the interest rate of 6% reflected in the Order supra sought to be reviewed, be deleted it was contended by the Learned Assistant Solicitor General that the Petitioners were initially granted three months time to pay the compensation awarded to the Respondents No.3 to 23, vide the Final Order dated 19.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.55 of 2018. On failure to deposit the amount, the Court had ordered that delay would entail deposit with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. On 23.06.2021, in C.M.C. No.01 of 2021, on further time being sought by the Petitioners the Court was pleased to grant further three months to the Petitioners to pay the compensation i.e. till 19.09.2021. That, the extension of time was sans payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount. As the Petitioners could not make the payment during the slated period, vide

Order dated 14.09.2021, in C.M.C. No.04 of 2021, this Court granted further extension of time for payment. That, in the last Paragraph of the Order, dated 14.09.2021, an interest of 6% is reflected. Since the Respondents raised no objection to the extension of time sought, this Review Petition is preferred praying that the last Paragraph of the Order dated 14.09.2021, wherein interest has been ordered to be paid be deleted.

3. Considered submissions.

4. (i) To understand the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to recapitulate that on 19.03.2021, in W.P.(C) No.55 of 2018, a Single Bench of this Court comprising of the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice, had ordered as follows; “14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with a direction that the compensation determined by respondents no. 3 and 4 vide letter dated 01.11.2017 shall be deposited by respondents no. 1 and 2 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this Order. Failure to deposit the said amount within the time limit shall entail deposit with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum. It is further directed that on receipt of the said amount of compensation, the respondent nos.3 and 4 shall pay the same to the petitioners, as per law within a further period of one month or may keep in fixed deposit till its disbursement. On failure to pay by respondents No. 3 & 4 within the stipulated time, the interest as per the rates of fixed deposits prevalent on the date of deposit be payable to petitioners.”

Vide Order dated 23.06.2021 in C.M.C. No.01 of

(ii) 2021, a Single Bench of this Court again comprising of the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice, had ordered as follows; “After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and considering the documents placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to extend three months more time to the Central Government with the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the original order dated 19-03-2021. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.” considering the documents placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to extend three months more time to the Central Government with the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the original order dated 19-03-2021. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.”

Record of Proceedings

It may relevantly be explained here that 6% interest was ordered to be paid if compensation was not paid on time and when extension of time for payment was granted, the interest factor remained unchanged.

(iii) On 14.09.2021, C.M.C. No.04 of 2021 was taken up by this Court, on which date, the Learned Assistant Solicitor General filed a Petition seeking further six months time to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,89,09,777/- (Rupees one crore, eighty nine lakhs, nine thousand, seven hundred and seventy seven) only, to the Respondents No.3 to 23. After due consideration of the matter, this Court granted time for three months against the six months prayed for by the Petitioners and inter alia ordered as under; “In view of the lapse of time from March, 2021 and the fact that previously also in C.M.C. No.01 of 2021 three months’ time was afforded to the Petitioners, let the deposit be made by the Petitioners, within three months from today, along with the specified rate of interest for the delayed deposit as ordered on 19.03.2021. C.M.C. No.04 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.”

(iv) The pivotal argument of the Learned Assistant Solicitor General appears to be that the Learned Additional Advocate General for State-Respondents No.1 and 2 and the Counsel for Respondents No.3 to 23 raised no objection to the prayer for extension of time, hence the Court was not empowered to impose the rate of interest.

5. In the first instance, the purport and import of the Order, dated 19.03.2021, must be understood by the Petitioners in its correct perspective. It is unequivocally mentioned therein that should there be a failure to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated period, an interest of 6% on the compensation awarded would have to be paid by the Petitioners. The subsequent Order, dated

Record of Proceedings

23.06.2021, also indicates that although time for payment of compensation was extended, the terms and conditions of the Order dated 19.03.2021 would remain unchanged, inasmuch as 6% interest was to be paid on the compensation amount. The Order of this Court, dated 14.09.2021, has not imposed any fresh rate of interest. The same rate of interest has been continued, for the reason that the Order, dated 19.03.2021, requires the Petitioners to deposit this rate of interest until payment of the compensation is made. The rate of interest was imposed on 19.03.2021 evidently for the purpose of expediting payment of compensation to the private Respondents to mete out even handed justice. It would do well for the Petitioners to also bear in mind that the Court is not bound by only the “No Objection” put forth by the Respondents and can exercise its own discretion to further the cause of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

6. That apart, while walking through the Order, dated 14.09.2021, it is apparent that the Learned Additional Advocate General for the State-Respondents No.1 and 2 had no objection to the time sought for by the Petitioners as did Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 23 but neither of the Respondents sought waiver of interest imposed vide the Order, dated 19.03.2021. The Petitioners notably also did not seek any waiver of interest in its Petition or by submissions advanced by the Counsel.

7. The Petition is totally misconceived with scarce understanding of the purport of the Order, dated 19.03.2021, as also the subsequent Orders or the inherent powers vested on the Court for exercising its discretion judiciously. Hence, the Petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.

Acting Chief Justice07.10.2021

ml