Facts
The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking interest on the alleged delayed disbursement of compensation awarded on 28.02.2019 by the Land Acquisition Officer
Source reference: p. 2The respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC), deposited the total compensation of Rs. 2,25,37,84,061/- via demand drafts on 14.03.2019, which was credited to the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s account on 18.03.2019
Source reference: p. 2Possession of the land was handed over on 13.12.2019
Source reference: p. 2The Land Acquisition Officer issued a communication on 29.06.2019 requesting necessary documentation from the petitioner and co-owners
Source reference: p. 3The co-owners submitted documents intermittently between August 2019 and January 2020, and final payment was disbursed on 11.03.2020
Source reference: p. 3Issues
Whether there was an actionable delay on the part of the acquiring body or the Land Acquisition Officer in disbursing the compensation amount that would entitle the petitioner to interest
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
Section 38(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates the collector to take possession of land only after ensuring that full payment of compensation has been offered or paid to the entitled persons
Source reference: p. 3The principle that a writ of mandamus for interest is not maintainable where the delay is attributable to the claimant's failure to provide necessary documentation or where the authorities acted within a reasonable timeframe
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The court found that the acquiring body (IOC) deposited the requisite funds within approximately two weeks of the award, satisfying the requirements of the 2013 Act
Source reference: p. 2-3The court noted that the interval between the award (28.02.2019) and the payment (11.03.2020) was due to the administrative process of verifying multiple co-owners and the delayed submission of documents by those land owners between August 2019 and January 2020
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner failed to file a rejoinder to contradict the authorities' claim that the timeline was driven by the owners' document submissions
Source reference: p. 4The court reasoned that the authorities acted in a reasonable and timely manner once the necessary legal formalities were completed by the claimants
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The court held that there was no unjustifiable delay on the part of the respondents in the disbursement of the compensation
The petition was dismissed as misconceived, as the "mandamus as prayed for" could not be issued when no fault or negligence was found on the part of the acquiring body or the competent authority
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
ASHOKBHAI SOMABHAI PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in