Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 246255 OF 2020
The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu,
District Parbhani, Maharashtra …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Etc. Etc. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2020.01.15
18:31:22 IST
Reason:
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in
First Appeal Nos. 40834092 of 2016 whereby the High Court has
1
partly allowed the said first appeals preferred by the original
claimants and has enhanced the amount of compensation for the
lands acquired, the acquiring body – The Executive Engineer,
Nimna Dudhna Project has preferred the present appeals.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that as such there was a delay of five and
a half years in preferring the first appeals. It is submitted that
assuming that the High Court is justified in enhancing the
amount of compensation at par with the other land
owners/claimants, as there was a huge delay of five and a half
years, the High Court ought not to have saddled the interest
liability for the period of delay upon the appellants. It is
submitted that for the delayed period the claimants shall also not
be entitled to any statutory benefits.
2.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate that as such there
was a huge delay of five and a half years and therefore as such
the same was not required to be condoned by the High Court. It
is submitted that in any case the High Court is not justified in
granting the statutory benefits and the interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation for the period of delay. In support of his
above submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
2
appellant has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in
the cases of Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari, (1996) 1
SCC 311; Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107; Dhiraj Singh
(D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 127; and K.
Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), (2017) 12 SCC 840 .
3. While opposing the present appeals, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents/original claimants has
vehemently submitted that as such the original claimants
claimed the parity in compensation with other land owners. It is
submitted that at the time when the High Court condoned the
delay, the same was not conditional, namely, to deny the
statutory benefits and the interest for the interregnum period –
delayed period. It is submitted that the order condoning the
delay had attained finality and therefore subsequently it is not
open for the appellant to submit that the High Court ought not to
have awarded the statutory benefits and the interest for the
delayed period.
3.1 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents/original claimants that even otherwise
as per the settled proposition of law, all claimants/land owners
3
are entitled to the same compensation for the land acquired for
the same project vide the same notification.
3.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeals.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute in
the present appeals is only with respect to award of statutory
benefits and interest for the delayed period. It is not in dispute
that there was a huge delay of five and a half years in preferring
the appeals before the High Court challenging the judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court. However, considering the
fact that in other matters the delay was condoned, the High
Court condoned the delay and entertained the appeals and
enhanced the amount of compensation at par with other land
owners/claimants whose lands were acquired for the same
project vide the same notification. Therefore, as such, no fault
can be found with the order passed by the High Court condoning
the delay. It is required to be noted that as such the order
condoning the delay has attained finality as the same was not
challenged by the appellant at the relevant time. Be that as it
4
may, the issue which is required to be considered is, whether for
the delayed period the claimants shall be entitled to the statutory
benefits and the interest under the Land Acquisition Act?
4.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra . In the case of Dhiraj
Singh (supra) , while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal
before this Court, while enhancing the amount of compensation
at par with other similarly situated land owners, this Court has
denied the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for
the period of delay in approaching the High Court by way of
LPAs. Similar view is expressed by this Court in the case of K.
Subbarayudu (supra) and while condoning the delay in preferring
the appeal, this Court has denied the interest for the period of
delay. Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no
such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be
entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation
for the period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public
body cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for
the period of delay, which is not at all attributed to them. Under
the circumstances, the common impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court awarding the interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation for the period of delay in preferring the
5
appeals deserve to be quashed and set aside and the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
4.2 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these appeals are allowed in part. The common impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is modified to the
extent denying the interest to the respondents/original claimants
on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay
in preferring the appeals. Rest of the judgment and award
passed by the High Court is confirmed. No costs.
………………………………J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
JANUARY 15, 2020. [M.R. SHAH]
6