Delhi High Court: Landowners cannot be denied statutory interest on enhanced compensation merely because they delayed amending their claim

The Petitioner sought amendment of its compensation claims in two land-acquisition appeals.

By order dated 10 April 2026, the Court allowed the amendments but barred interest on any enhanced compensation for the period between filing the appeals and filing the amendment applications.

In review, the Petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning interest on enhanced compensation; those decisions had not been placed before the Court when it made the original order.

The appeals had been filed within time, while the amendment applications followed approximately eleven months after a relevant decision of a Coordinate Bench.

Whether the Review Petitions were maintainable within the limited scope of review jurisdiction, where the Petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions not considered when the original order was made.

Whether the condition denying interest on enhanced compensation for the period between filing the appeals and filing the amendment applications should be removed.

Under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, review is limited to discovery of important matter or evidence not previously available despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds; it is not an appeal in disguise (Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320).

Article 141 of the Constitution makes law declared by the Supreme Court binding on the High Court.

Under Sections 28 and 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, interest on enhanced compensation is statutory; Ratti Ram v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 110, held that the Act provides for no exclusion of a period and that interest runs by reference to dispossession, while Koli Nanji Bhuta v. State of Gujarat, Civil Appeal No. 628 of 2005 (20 January 2005), held that delayed filing of an appeal and a later amendment application did not justify denying interest on enhanced compensation from the date of the award.

The Court rejected the objection that the Petitions merely sought a rehearing: the Supreme Court authorities directly addressing interest had not been considered when the original condition was imposed, and their subsequent citation warranted reconsideration in light of Article 141.

Applying Ratti Ram and Koli Nanji Bhuta, the Court held that delay in seeking amendment did not displace the statutory entitlement to interest.

It considered this case stronger than Koli Nanji Bhuta because the appeals were timely; only the amendment applications were filed later.

The Petitioner is entitled to statutory interest on any enhanced compensation awarded, in accordance with law; the Court did not determine the amount of compensation or interest.

The Petitions and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.