Authorities Directed to Disburse Pending Land Acquisition Compensation and Statutory Interest Upon Filing of Representation

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the return of land taken by the State in excess of an 11-acre acquisition notified in 2012 and 2017 for the construction of the Mahnar Sub-Division Joint Offices.

They also sought compensation/solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, payment for a pucca kuan (well) located on the land, and damages for crop loss since 2012.

During the pendency of the litigation, the State returned the excess land and assessed compensation for the well, asserting that a letter was issued in 2022 inviting the petitioners to collect payment.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the remaining compensation amount and interest for delayed payment despite the return of the excess land during the proceedings.

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to dispose of the pending claims through a reasoned order.

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the enforcement of rights related to property and fair compensation.

The court implicitly relied on the principles of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which governs the assessment of compensation, solatium, and interest for delayed payments in statutory land acquisitions.

The court observed that the primary grievance regarding the unauthorized possession of excess land had been mitigated as the respondents returned said land during the pendency of the writ.

The court found that the issues regarding the specific quantum of compensation for the pucca kuan and the claim for interest on delayed payments remained unresolved.

The court noted that it was unclear from the record if the petitioners had formally approached the District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO) following the 2022 communication. Consequently, rather than adjudicating on the merits of the calculations, the court determined that the DLAO was the appropriate authority to finalize these claims upon a fresh representation.

The Court directed Respondent No. 4 to: (a) make necessary payments of the pending compensation along with interest as per law within two months of receipt of the representation, or (b) pass a reasoned order within three months.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.