Anita Amit Agrawal, Thr. P.O.A. ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Road ... on 26 March, 2019

[Cites 9, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Anita Amit Agrawal, Thr. P.O.A. ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Road ... on 26 March, 2019

Bench: Manish Pitale

1/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 3126 OF 2018

1. Anita Amit Agrawal
Aged about 39 Years, Occu-Business

2. Nupur d/o Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 32 Years, Occu-Business ... PETITIONERS

Through Power of Attorney Holders :-

Mr. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu-Business, Or

Mr. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business,

Both Power of Attorney Holders R/o 222,
Mittal Villa, East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
- 440008.

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Department of Road Transport and
Highways, through its Secretary

2. The Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
(General) Nagpur & Competent Authority
u/s 3(a) of the National Highways Act,
1956, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
2/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

3. National Highways Authority of India
P.I.U. Nagpur, through its Project Director,
having office at :- Bunglow No.2, Plot
No.159, Shubhankar Apartments, Ambazari
Road, Ambazari Hilltop, Verma Layout, Ram
Nagar, Nagpur - 440033. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3127 OF 2018

1. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu - Business

2. Vijeta Rajesh Agrawal
Aged about 41 Years, Occu - Business ... PETITIONERS

Through Power of Attorney Holders :-

Mr. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu-Business, Or

Mr. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business,

Both Power of Attorney Holders R/o 222,
Mittal Villa, East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
- 440008.

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Department of Road Transport and
Highways, through its Secretary

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
3/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

2. The Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
(General) Nagpur & Competent Authority
u/s 3(a) of the National Highways Act,
1956, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3128 OF 2018

1. Rajesh Rampratap Agrawal
Aged about 46 Years, Occu - Business

2. Amit Govindprasad Agrawal
Aged about 43 Years, Occu - Business ... PETITIONERS

Through Power of Attorney Holders :-

Mr. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu-Business, Or

Mr. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business,

Both Power of Attorney Holders R/o 222,
Mittal Villa, East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
- 440008.

VERSUS

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
4/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

1. Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Department of Road Transport and
Highways, through its Secretary

2. The Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
(General) Nagpur & Competent Authority
u/s 3(a) of the National Highways Act,
1956, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3129 OF 2018

1. Manish Govindprasad Agrawal
Aged about 43 Years, Occu - Business

2. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business ... PETITIONERS

Through Power of Attorney Holders :-

Mr. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu-Business, Or

Mr. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business,

Both Power of Attorney Holders R/o 222,
Mittal Villa, East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
- 440008.

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
5/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Department of Road Transport and
Highways, through its Secretary

2. The Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
(General) Nagpur & Competent Authority
u/s 3(a) of the National Highways Act,
1956, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3130 OF 2018

1. Nidhi Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 35 Years, Occu - Business.

2. Rupal Manish Agrawal
Aged bout 41 Years, Occu - Business. ... PETITIONERS

Through Power of Attorney Holders :-

Mr. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu-Business, Or

Mr. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business,

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
6/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

Both Power of Attorney Holders R/o 222,
Mittal Villa, East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
- 440008.

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Department of Road Transport and
Highways, through its Secretary

2. The Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
(General) Nagpur & Competent Authority
u/s 3(a) of the National Highways Act,
1956, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3131 OF 2018

1. Lata Govindprasad Agrawal
Aged about 72 Years, Occu - Business

2. Sushila w/o Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 63 Years, Occu - Business ... PETITIONERS

Through Power of Attorney Holders :-

Mr. Murlidhar Suganchand Agrawal
Aged about 68 Years, Occu-Business, Or

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
7/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

Mr. Nitin Murlidhar Agrawal
Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Business,

Both Power of Attorney Holders R/o 222,
Mittal Villa, East Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur
- 440008.

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Department of Road Transport and
Highways, through its Secretary

2. The Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
(General) Nagpur & Competent Authority
u/s 3(a) of the National Highways Act,
1956, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

Mr. H. R. Ghadia, Advocate for Petitioners in all Writ Petitions.
Mr. V. A. Bramhe, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in all Writ Petitions.
Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent No.2 in all Writ Petitions.
Mr. A. A. Kathane, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in all Writ Petitions.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : MARCH 26, 2019

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::
8/27
Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

ORAL JUDGMENT

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are land owners whose lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway by the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India. Acquisition was undertaken as per the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. The Petitioners have challenged the impugned orders passed by the court of District Judge-9, Nagpur in execution proceedings initiated by the Petitioners, whereby a specific prayer made for grant of interest on delayed payment of compensation amount by the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority has been rejected.

3. The facts leading up to filing of the present Petitions are that, on 31st October, 2012 the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority issued Awards in the cases of the Petitioners herein in respect of the aforesaid acquisition. The Petitioners invoked the provisions of the aforesaid Act seeking enhancement of compensation vide reference cases before the Arbitrator. On 17th July 2015 the Arbitrator pronounced the Awards in the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 9/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters cases of all the Petitioners herein and granted enhanced compensation. As per the terms of the Award, the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India was required to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of notification under Section 3-D of the Act till the date of payment of enhanced compensation to the Petitioners.

4. On 29th January 2016 the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India deposited amount payable to the Petitioners along with interest @ 9% per annum as directed by the Arbitrator with the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority. It has come on record that the Competent Authority on 2nd February 2016 informed the Petitioners that they should remain present on 5 th February 2016 before the Competent Authority with necessary documents for disbursement of the amount of compensation along with interest deposited by the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India. The Petitioners sent communication to the Competent Authority expressing their inability to remain present on 5th February 2016 and they requested that they be permitted to remain ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 10/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters present on 8th February 2016 before the Competent Authority for collecting the amount of compensation with interest.

5. In the meanwhile, the Petitioners had filed Applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the court of Principal District Judge, Nagpur challenging the aforesaid Awards pronounced by the Arbitrator and notices issued by the said court were received by the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority on 8 th February 2016. According to the Petitioners, due to receipt of such notices in the proceedings initiated by them under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Competent Authority refused to pay the amount of compensation along with interest to the Petitioners and despite repeated efforts made by them, the competent authority failed to make payment of compensation with interest to them.

6. According to the Petitioners, they were constrained to initiate execution proceedings on 24th June 2016 before the Executing Court in respect of the said Awards and for recovery of the amount of compensation with interest. In these proceedings, the Petitioners contended that they were entitled to the amount of compensation with ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 11/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters interest as directed in the arbitration Awards. Eventually on 16 th November 2016, the Competent Authority deposited the said amounts as per the Awards passed in favour of the Petitioners, before the Executing Court. The Petitioners withdrew the amount within a period of one week thereafter.

7. In this backdrop, the Petitioners contended before the Executing Court that they were entitled to further interest at the rate of 9% per annum in terms of the Awards from 29th January 2016 i.e. the date when the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India deposited the entire amount with interest with the Competent Authority till 16th November 2016, when the Competent Authority eventually deposited the amount before the Executing Court. They further prayed for grant of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 17 th November 2016 to 23rd February 2017, on the ground that they were required to file Applications for issuance of warrant of attachment of movable properties against the Competent Authority for payment of amount of interest.

8. In other words, the Petitioners claimed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 29th January 2016 to 23rd February 2017. The ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 12/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters Petitioners placed calculations on record before the Executing Court, specifying the amount payable towards interest for the said period by the Competent Authority.

9. The aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner was resisted by the Competent Authority on the grounds:- (a) firstly, that the Competent Authority had communicated to the Petitioners immediately on 2nd February 2016 after receipt of amount of compensation along with interest from the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India on 29th January 2016 and Petitioners were required to remain present for collecting the said amount and it was the Petitioners who failed to remain present on the specified date i.e. on 5 th February 2016; (b) secondly, that when the Competent Authority became aware about pendency of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, it made repeated efforts to deposit the said amount before the court of Principal District Judge, Nagpur where the said Applications were pending, but due to procedural reasons, such deposit could not be made; and (c) thirdly, that when such attempts to deposit amounts before the court where the Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 13/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters Conciliation Act, 1996 was pending failed, the Competent Authority immediately deposited the amount before the Executing Court on 16 th November 2016. On this basis, it was contended that Competent Authority could not be blamed for delay in payment of the said amounts to the Petitioners, and therefore, the prayer made for grant of interest was not sustainable.

10. By the impugned order dated 18 th January 2018 the Executing Court rejected the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners for grant of interest from 29 th January 2016 onwards. The contentions raised on behalf of the Competent Authority were accepted and it was held that the Petitioners were not liable to pay amount towards interest.

11. The Petitioners have filed Writ Petitions challenging the said orders passed by the Executing Court denying interest to them.

12. Mr. H. R. Gadhia, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions submitted that the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly Sections 3-E, 3-G and 3-H require the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 14/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters Competent Authority to pay the amount of compensation deposited by Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India as soon as the said amount is deposited by the Respondent No.3. The mandate of the statute is that, the land owners/claimants must receive the amount of compensation at the earliest without any delay. It is submitted that the facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority was solely responsible to blame for the delay in payment of compensation to the Petitioners after 29 th January 2016, the date on which the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India deposited the amount as per the arbitral awards along with interest @ 9% per annum with the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority.

13. It was contended that the reasons given by the Competent Authority and accepted by the Executing Court for delay in payment of the amount were not sustainable and that the same could not have been accepted in the face of the statutory mandate. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shivkumar Shamrao Atulkar V/s Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Shipping and Ors. (Judgment and Order dated 23 rd February 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 15/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters passed in Writ Petition No.996 of 2017) and the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of Abbas T. Vagh & Ors. V/s The Competent Authority & Special Revenue Officer (LA) & Anr. (Judgment and Order dated 3rd December 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 30548 of 2013.

14. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority submitted that the Executing Court had correctly appreciated the efforts made by the Competent Authority to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest before the court where the Applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Petitioners were pending and due to non-acceptance of such deposit by the said court, delay in disbursement of amount had occurred. It was submitted that the Petitioners were to blame for delay in disbursement of amount and the burden of interest could not be foisted on the Competent Authority for the fault of the Petitioners. On this basis, it was contended that Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed.

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 16/27

Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters

15. Mr. Kathane, the learned Counsel appeared on behalf of Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India and contended that the Petitioners were not entitled to any relief from Respondent No.3 because the facts on record demonstrated that Respondent No.3 had deposited the entire amount of compensation as per the arbitral Awards along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on 29 th January 2016 with the Competent Authority and that the Petitioners in the present Writ Petitions were claiming interest from 29 th January 2016 onwards. On this basis, it was contended that the Respondent No.3 has been wrongly added as party Respondent in the Writ Petitions.

16. Heard the learned Counsel of the parties and perused record.

17. The documents and material on record demonstrate that after the Awards were pronounced by the Arbitrator directing payment of enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the Petitioners on 29 th January 2016, Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India did indeed deposit the entire amount with interest with the Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority. The moment the said amounts were deposited with the Respondent No.2 - Competent ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 17/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters Authority, Section 3-H (2) of the National Highways Act stood triggered. It provides that as soon as such amount is deposited, the Competent Authority shall pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.

18. In the present case, there is no dispute about the entitlement of the Petitioners towards the said amount, and therefore, there is no question of the Competent Authority exercising powers under Section 3- H(3) or 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Therefore, the Competent Authority was expected to disburse the amounts to the Petitioners as soon as they were deposited by the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India.

19. The record shows that on 2nd February 2016, the Competent Authority had communicated to the Petitioners that they were required to remain present on 5th February 2016 before the Competent Authority with relevant documents for disbursement of the amount of compensation and interest. The Petitioners expressed their inability to remain present on 5 th February 2016 and expressed that they would remain present on 8 th February 2016 for collecting amount of compensation along with interest. ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 18/27

Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters It appears that the Competent Authority did not respond to the said request.

20. It has also come on record that the Competent Authority received notices of the Applications filed by the Petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 8 th February 2016 and thereafter the approach of the Competent Authority changed. The record shows that despite requests made by the Petitioners to release the amount of compensation and interest lying with it, the Competent Authority refused to do so and this impelled the Petitioners to institute execution proceedings before the court below. The record shows that on 24 th June 2016 the Petitioners were constrained to file execution proceedings before the court below for realization of the amount of compensation along with interest as per the arbitral awards granting enhanced compensation.

21. It is in these proceedings that eventually on 16 th November 2016, the Competent Authority deposited the amounts along with interest up to 29th January 2016, as had been deposited by the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India with the Competent Authority. Such deposits were made before the Executing Court, according to the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 19/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters Competent Authority, towards full satisfaction of the claims of the Petitioners.

22. The claims of the Competent Authority that the arbitral awards granting enhanced compensation stood fully satisfied upon deposit of amount before Executing Court needs to be examined. Perusal of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 is necessary to test the said contention raised on behalf of the Competent Authority. Section 3-H reads as under :

"3-H. Deposit and payment of amount - (1) The amount determined under section 3-G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. (2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.

(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 20/27

 Yadav                                          Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters




                  (4)      If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the

amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

(5) Where the amount determined under section 3-G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine percent per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.

(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit."

23. Sub-section (2) of Section 3-H of the Act quoted above mandates that the Competent Authority shall pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto as soon as such amount is deposited by ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 21/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters the Central Government (in this case the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India). Thus, the statutory mandate is that, the Competent Authority is required to make payment of the amount as soon as it is deposited with it by the Respondent No.3.

24. In the present case, the deposit of the amount was made on 29th January 2016. The Competent Authority communicated to the Petitioners on 2nd February 2016 regarding disbursement of the amount, but due to inability of the Petitioners to remain present on 5 th February 2016 and their request to remain present on 8th February 2016, the said amount could not be paid to the Petitioners. It is at this stage that the Competent Authority was required to make payment of the said amounts as soon as possible to the Petitioners. Instead, the Competent Authority failed to do so and efforts were said to have been made on its part to deposit the amount before the Court, where the Applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, filed by the Petitioners were pending.

25. The Executing Court has also placed much emphasis on the said efforts made by the Competent Authority and it has been found that ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 22/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters such efforts made by the Competent Authority demonstrated that it had satisfied the statutory mandate and consequently no interest could be claimed by the Petitioners for delay in disbursement of amounts to them. When the statutory mandate under Section 3-H(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is clear that the Competent Authority shall make payment of the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto, it will be difficult to understand that as to why the Competent Authority insisted upon depositing the said amount before the Court where the Applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were pending. This was in the backdrop that the Petitioners were repeatedly approached the Competent Authority for payment of such amounts. The pendency of Applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act had nothing to do with the statutory requirement under Section 3-H(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the Competent Authority to make payment of the amounts to the Petitioners.

26. In this backdrop, the Petitioners were constrained to file execution applications on 24th June 2016 before the court below and eventually on 16th November 2016 the competent authority deposited the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 23/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters amounts in the Executing Court. Even after the execution proceedings were filed by the Petitioners, the competent authority made no effort to make payment of the amounts to the Petitioners and simply deposited the same in the Executing Court. The said amounts were indeed withdrawn by the Petitioners in about a week after 16 th November 2016 and it is at this stage that such amounts actually came into the accounts of the Petitioners and it could be said that the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation was made in terms of the arbitral awards. On proper reading of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, it becomes at once clear that the Competent Authority in the present case was to blame for the delay in the Petitioners' receiving amounts of compensation after about 10 months of the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India depositing the said amount with the Competent Authority. Therefore, it is clear that the Executing Court erred in rejecting the claim of interest made on behalf of the Petitioners.

27. The consequential question that arises is, the period for which the Petitioners will be entitled to amount towards interest on delayed payment of compensation by the Competent Authority. The events in the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 24/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters present case show that the amounts were undisputedly deposited by the Respondent No.3 - National Highways Authority of India with Competent Authority on 29th January 2016 and the Petitioners actually received those amounts in November-2016 after the amounts were deposited in the Executing Court by the Competent Authority on 16th November 2016. Although the Petitioners have claimed interest upto 23 rd February 2017, when they filed Applications for issuance of warrant of attachment of movable properties against the Competent Authority, it appears that in the facts of the present case, the Competent Authority having deposited the amounts on 16th November 2016 and the Petitioners having admittedly withdrawn the same within a week thereafter, it would be reasonable to hold that the Competent Authority would be liable to pay interest for delayed payment to the Petitioners from 29 th January 2016 to 16 th November 2016.

28. On the question of the rate of interest payable to the Petitioners, it is correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that when the Petitioners were granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum in the arbitral awards, on delayed payment, the Executing ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 25/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters Court ought to have granted interest @ 9% per annum on such delayed payment.

29. In this backdrop, it would not be necessary to refer to the Judgments relied upon on behalf of the Petitioners. They could be relied upon only on the question of entitlement of the Petitioners to grant of interest for delayed payment. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners have specified exact amounts that would be payable to them upon calculation of interest at the rate of 9% per annum for delayed payment of amounts for the period from 29th January 2016 to 16th November 2016. The said amounts have been recorded in the impugned orders also and they are not disputed by Respondent No.2. Therefore, the present Petitions are allowed in the following terms.

(i) Writ Petition No.3126 of 2018 :- The Petitioners shall be entitled to amount of Rs.10,16,769/- towards interest for delayed payment by the Respondent No.2 Competent Authority and the said amount shall be paid by the said Competent Authority within a period of three months.

(ii) Writ Petition No. 3127 of 2018 :- The Petitioners are held entitled to the amount of Rs.15,37,039/- towards interest for delayed payment by ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 26/27 Yadav Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters the said Competent Authority and the said amount shall be paid within a period of three months.

(iii) Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2018 :- In this this Writ Petition amount was deposited by the Competent Authority in the Executing Court on 5 th October 2016. Hence, the period for which interest would be payable is 29th January 2016 to 5th October 2016 and the amount comes to Rs.8,90,493/-. The said Competent Authority shall pay the said amount to the Petitioners within a period of three months.

(iv) Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2018 :- The said Competent Authority shall pay amount of Rs.14,92,679/- to the Petitioners towards interest for delayed payment of compensation within a period of three months.

(v) Writ Petition No. 3130 of 2018 :- The said Competent Authority shall pay an amount of Rs.14,92,679/- towards interest to the Petitioners for delayed payment within a period of three months.

(vi) Writ Petition No. 3131 of 2018 :- The said Competent Authority shall pay an amount of Rs.10,16,769/- towards interest to the Petitioners for delayed payment within a period of three months.

::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 ::: 27/27

 Yadav                                         Judg.930.wp.3126.18 aw connected matters




 30.               The Competent     Authority     referred      to    above is         only

Respondent No.2 herein as it is held that Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay interest to the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions.

31. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

(MANISH PITALE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 23:30:12 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court