Madras High Court
Abbas T.Vagh vs The Competent Authority on 3 December, 2013
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 03.12.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.30548 of 2013 1.Abbas T.Vagh 2.Amir abbas T.Vagh 3.Dr.Fatima Abbas T.Vagh 4.Shabbir T. Vagh 5.Abbas S. Vagh 6.Moiz S.Vagh 7.Abdul Hussain S.Vagh 8.Mohammedi T. Vagh 9.Azeez M.Vagh 10.Alia A. Vagh 11.Hussaini S. Vagh 12.Tyeb S. Vagh 13.Mustali M. Vagh All Rep. by their power Agent A.N.Nandakumar .. Petitioners Versus 1.The Competent Authority & Spl. Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts at Kanchipuram. 2.National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Rep. by its Project Director, No.1/54 2S Butt Road, St. Thomas Road, Chennai - 16 .. Respondents [R2 impleaded as per order dated 25.11.2013 by SMKJ in M.P.No.1/13 in W.P.No.30548/2013] Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to the impugned order in Rc.59/2013/A/NH-5/TVR dated 01.08.2013 of the respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to pay the accrued interest for the compensation from 26.04.2007 to 02.08.2011 on the deposit of Rs.2,14,30,967/- with Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam Branch. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, (for R1) Additional Government Pleader Mr.P.Wilson, (for R2) Addnl.Solicitor General of India, Asst. by Mr.S.Prasanna O R D E R
The moot question raised in this writ petition is whether the landowners or persons interested, are entitled to interest on the compensation amount determined by the competent authority, when there is a delay on the part of the competent authority, in depositing the amount, in the Court, on account of rival claims to the amount determined. In subsance, the Court is also called upon to address the issue as to whether the landowners or the persons interested are entitled to interest on the amount determined, till the payment is made.
2. Short facts leading to the writ petition, are as follows:
The petitioners have purchased lands, in Survey Nos.1425/1(part), 1425/2(part) and 1426, measuring an extent of 4 Acres and 78 Cents, together with a common right of passage, to an extent of 2587 Sq.Mts., from M/s.Nagappa Industrial Trading Corporation, represented by Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar, by way of registered sale deeds, dated 18.11.1989, in Document Nos.4666 to 4675 of 1989 respectively, registered on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Sembium. While the petitioners were enjoying the property, along with the right of common passage, the said property was acquired for the expansion of the National Highways, under National Highways Act, 1956.
3. The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts, at Kanchipuram, 1st respondent herein, has conducted an enquiry, for the acquisition of the lands and the petitioners claimed compensation jointly, in respect of both the lands and common passage. The 1st respondent has determined the compensation for the entire extent, but disbursed the amount, only in respect of lands, apportioning the amount, to the individuals. In respect of the compensation amount determined for the common passage, one Mr.K.Mathiaharan, made a claim, as if, he had purchased the common passage to an extent of 15 grounds (1321 Sq.Ft.,) in respect of Survey Nos.1425/1(part), 1425/2(part) and 1427 (part) from M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar. On verification from the documents filed by the said K.Mathiaharan, the 1st respondent herein, held that the documents relied upon by the said K.Mathiaharan are not valid, as the passage could not be reconveyed by the said M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar, after having sold the same, as a common passage to the petitioners. The original vendor, M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar, himself made a claim to the 1st respondent on 18.03.2007.
4. The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts, at Kanchipuram, 1st respondent, has decided to deposit the amount determined in respect of the common passage, vide proceedings in Rc.No.134/2006-A/TVR, dated 26.04.2007. A sum of Rs.2,14,30,967/- has been determined as compensation, in respect of the common passage and the said amount has been deposited on 26.04.2007, in the Nationalised Bank, viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam Branch, in the Joint Account of Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts, at Kanchipuram, 1st respondent and the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein. But the matter was not referred to the Civil Court, till June' 2011. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.16541 of 2011 and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the dispute was referred to the Principal Sub Court, Ponneri in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011. The said amount alone has been deposited in the Civil Court on 02.08.2011. The accrued interest on the amount, was not deposited.
5. The Learned Principal Sub Court, Ponneri, vide judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2013, in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011, decided that the petitioners alone are entitled to receive the amount of Rs.2,14,30,967/-, deposited in Court and both M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar and K.Mathiaharan, are not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, the Court further ordered that the amount should be disbursed to them. Claiming that they are entitled to the accrued interest on the amount deposited, during the period between 26.04.2007 and 02.08.2011, when the amount was lying in the joint account of Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts, at Kanchipuram, 1st respondent and the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, the petitioners have sent a representation on 28.06.2013, to the 1st respondent, who in turn, vide impugned order, dated 01.08.2013, has rejected the said representation, stating that there is no provision in the National Highways Act, 1956, for payment of interest on the compensation.
6. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that where any land is acquired under the said Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. He further submitted that as per Section 3H(1) of the Act, the amount determined under Section 3G 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.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per sub-Section (2) of Section 3H of the Act, 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. He submitted that the determination and payment of compensation to the land owners, should be done before taking possession of the land and prior to that, the amount so determined shall be deposited by the Central Government with the competent authority, viz., Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Kanchipuram.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the period between 26.04.2007, when the amount was deposited, as per the order, dated 26.04.2007, in the Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam Branch, in the joint account of Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts, at Kanchipuram, 1st respondent and the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein and 02.08.2011, the date on which, L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011, was referred to the civil Court, as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.16541 of 2011, the petitioners are entitled to the accrued interest, on the award amount, determined and deposited by the Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Kanchipuram, in the joint account.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that when Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, has been struck down by the Karnataka High Court in AIR 2003 Kar. 165, as unconstitutional and also by a decision of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in T.Chakrapani v. Union of India reported in 2011 WLR 193, it is not open to the respondents to deny interest on the compensation amount deposited. Placing reliance on the abovesaid decisions, he submitted that the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioners to the accrued interest, is liable to be set aside. According to him, rejection of the claim of the petitioners, for accrued interest is violative of the principles of equity and Articles 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
10. Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no sooner, the compensation, for the acquisition of the land is deposited, such amount deposited, would be the property of the petitioners/land owners and that the accrued interest on such deposit, is also vested with the land owners.
11. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Chennai, has been impleaded as the 2nd respondent, vide order, dated 25.11.2013, in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.30548 of 2013. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the National Highways of India, submitted that in the absence of any provision in the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioners have no right to seek for interest on the award amount deposited. Hence, he has made a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition.
12. Without prejudice to the above, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, by inviting the attention of this Court to the prayer made in W.P.No.16541 of 2011, dated 04.08.2011, which is for a Mandamus, directing the respondents therein, to refer the claim of the petition property, bearing No.30, Madhavala Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, comprised in Survey No.1425/1(part), 1425/2(part) and 1426, measuring an extent of 255 Sq.Ft., to the competent Civil Court, as contemplated under Section 3(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, further submitted that in the abovesaid Writ, the petitioners have not sought for any interest on the compensation determined and deposited by the 1st respondent and therefore, their claim, made nearly after two years, is not maintainable and consequently, when such a claim has been negatived by the 1st respondent, on the grounds that there is no provision in the National Highways Act, 1956, to award interest, on the compensation deposited, the writ petition, questioning the said order, is not maintainable. In sum and substance, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submitted that the principle of waiver has to be applied to the facts of this case.
13. Inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011, dated 19.02.2013, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, further submitted that even in the decree of the Civil Court, there is no order, as to payment of interest, on the award amount, when it was in the joint account and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek for issuance of any Mandamus.
14. Taking this Court through the reasons, stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts, at Kanchipuram, 1st respondent, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, further submitted that the delay in the process of reference to the Court of civil jurisdiction by the 1st respondent, should not be the cause, to fasten liability on the National Highways Authority of India, to pay the accrued interest, on the deposit of compensation. He reiterated that when the petitioners have made representation and consequently, sought for issuance of a Mandamus, for reference under Section 34(4) of the Act, they did not press any interest. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
15. By way of reply, Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the amount under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956, ought to have been immediately paid or deposited in the Court, when the dispute was raised. He further submitted that for the inaction or failure, on the part of the competent authority, in not referring the dispute to the Court, as per 3H(4) of the Act, the land owners should not be deprived of the accrued interest.
16. Inviting the attention of this Court sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that reference to the Court of competent Civil jurisdiction under the abovesaid Sections, pertains only to the apportionment of the amount or to whom, the amount deposited or the part thereof, is payable by the competent authority and at the time of seeking reference, the question of making any claim for payment of accrued interest, on the deposit, does not arise. According to him, it is suffice that a claim for reference under Section 3-H(4) is made. On the abovesaid submissions, he prayed to reject the objections of the respondents and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the accrued interest for the compensation from 26.04.2007 to 02.08.2011, on the deposit amount of Rs.2,14,30,967/- in Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam Branch.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
17. Before adverting to the facts of this case, this Court deems it fit to have a cursory look of some of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Central Act 48 of 1956) enacted to provide for the declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. For brevity, National Highways Act, 1956 (Central Act 48 of 1956), is hereinafter referred to as 'Act'.
18. Under Section 3-A, where the central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the official gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. As per Section 3-B of the Act, on the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government on his behalf to make any inspection, survey, measurement, valuation, enquiry, etc.
19. Section 3-C of the Act, contemplates a notice to be served, for the objections by the landowner or any person interested in the land. Opportunity of hearing has to be provided. Section 3-D of the Act, speaks about the declaration of acquisition by the Central Government by a notification in the official gazette that the land should be acquired for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3-A. As per sub-section 2 of Section 3-D, on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
20. Section 3-E of the Act, deals with power to take possession. It states that where any land has vested in the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 3-D and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 3-G with respect to such lands has been deposited under sub-section(1) of section 3-H, with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within sixty days of the service of notice. Section 3-E also deals with a case where there is a refusal or failure to comply with any direction under sub-section (1) of section 3-E of the Act.
21. Section 3-F of the Act, deals with the powers of any person, authorised by the Central Government, to enter into land which is vested by the Central Government, to enter and do other acts necessary upon the land for carrying out the works connected with acquisition. Determination of amount payable as compensation is done, as per Section 3-G of the Act. The said section is extracted hereunder, "3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation (1) where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(3) Before proceedings to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local news papers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3-C before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.
(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining, the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration-
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3-A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the and, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change."
Section 3-H deals with deposit and payment of amount.
22. As per sub-section (7) of Section 3-G of the Act, the competent authority or the Arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5) of the Act, as the case may be, shall take into consideration
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3-A.
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.
23. In addition to the above, as per sub section (2) of Section 3-G of the Act, where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been effected in any manner, whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1) for that land.
24. Thus, reading of Section 3-G makes it clear that where any land is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority, shall first determine the amount taking into consideration the factors stated supra and as per the procedure contemplated under the Act, and thereafter, as per Section 3H(1) of the Act, the Central Government shall deposit with the competent authority and pay the amount determined to the landowner or the person interested. The procedure for deposit and payment of amount is set out in Section 3-H of the Act. The amount determined under Section 3-G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by the rules made in this behalf by the Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. Determination followed by deposit, precedes taking over possession.
25. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the National Highways (Manner of Depositing the amount by the Central Government with the Competent Authority for Acquisition of Land) Rules, 1988, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956).
26. As per Rule 2 of the above said rules, the amount determined by the Competent authority under Section 3-G of the Act or the amount determined by the Arbitrator under Section 3-G of the Act, if is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded by the arbitrator, within seven days of such determination or award by the competent authority or by the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall be deposited with the competent authority through a demand draft. The competent authority shall deposit the amount received under sub-rule (1) in a separate Public Deposit Account in the Public Account of India and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 3-H of the Act, shall apply to such deposit.
27. Thus, reading of Section 3-H (1) of the Act, with Rule 2 of the National Highways (Manner of Depositing the amount by the Central Government with the Competent Authority for Acquisition of Land) Rules, 1988, makes it clear that whenever the amount is determined under Section 3-G of the Act, within seven days of such determination of the award by the competent authority, the said amount received under sub-rule (1) should be deposited in a separate Public Deposit Account in the Public Account of India.
28. Reading of Section 3-H(1) also makes it clear that the amount determined under Section 3-G shall be deposited by the Central Government with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. In sum and substance, the following acts, have to be done in succession by the Central Government and competent authority.
(i) before taking possession of the land, the competent authority, shall determine the amount of compensation, after following the procedure contemplated under Section 3-G.
(ii) No sooner the determination is done, the amount determined under Section 3-G shall be deposited by the Central Government as per Rule 2 of the National Highways (Manner of Depositing the amount by the Central Government with the Competent Authority for Acquisition of Land) Rules, 1988, within seven days of such determination or award by the competent authority.
(iii) As per sub-section 2 of Section 3-H of the Act, as soon as the amount is deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person / persons, entitled thereto.
29. The sequence of events stated supra, makes it clear that a specific time limit has been prescribed in the provisions, statutorily obligating the Central Government, to deposit the amount determined under Section 3-G with the competent authority, before taking possession, and the above deposit under sub-section (1) shall be paid to the person / persons entitled by the competent authority, on behalf of the Central Government. Thus, the deposit and payment has to be made immediately. As stated supra, reading of Section 3-H (1) & (2) also makes it clear that the payment of amount determined under Section 3-G of the Act, has to be done, before, the Central Government takes physical possession of the land.
30. Reverting to the case on hand, lands in Survey Nos.1425/1(Part), 1425/2(Part) and 1426 measurement measuring an extent of 4 Acres and 78 cents together with common right of passage to an extent of 2587 sq.mt., have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Chennai By-pass (Phase-II), connecting National Highways 4 at km.13/800 and National Highways 5 at Km.12/600 in the State of Tamilnadu. A sum of Rs.2,14,30,967/- has been determined as the amount by the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram., as compensation, for the lands stated to have been claimed as the common passage by the rival claimants, Mr.K.Mathiaharan and Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar, the vendor of the petitioners. As there was a dispute between the abovesaid persons, and the petitioners, to receive the said amount determined, it was not disbursed.
31. As per the version of the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram., the said amount was remitted back to the Government Account ie. Joint Current Account No.1555, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam, in the name of the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Chennai and the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram, as per the proceedings in Rc.15/2005/A/TVR dated 26.04.2007. That is from 26.04.2007, onwards, the amount was in the Joint Account of National Highways Authority of India and the competent authority.
32. Perusal of the proceedings of the competent authority in Rc.15/2005/A/TVR dated 26.04.2007, shows that in proceedings in Rc.15/2005/A/TVR dated 05.03.2007, a sum of Rs.63,88,12,260/- was ordered to be paid to the landowners towards payment of compensation to the land and structures for the lands acquired for construction of Grade Separator at Madhavaram junction. Under the said order, compensation was also determined for the extent of 2587 sq.meters in Survey No.1425/1H2 part, which has been a common road, for which a common right of usage of the passage was virtually conveyed to the petitioners, by their vendor Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiyar. Proceedings also shows that Mr.K.Mathiaharan, has submitted a claim on 28.02.2007, for payment of compensation, to the extent of land stated to have been conveyed to him, by Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiyar. The latter who had sold the property viz., Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiyar, has also submitted a petition dated 05.04.2007, claiming compensation for the land, to an extent of 15 grounds and 1321 sq.ft. An enquiry has been conducted and the claim of Mr.K.Mathiaharan, for payment of compensation for the abovesaid extent of land has been rejected vide proceedings of the competent authority i.e., Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram. in Rc.No.15/2005/A/TVR dated 05.03.2007.
33. However, after obtaining a legal opinion from the learned Government Pleader, the competent authority vide proceedings in Rc.No.15/2005/A/TVR dated 26.04.2007, has ordered that a sum of Rs.2,14,30,967/- the amount of compensation for the extent of land under dispute, be remitted back to the Government Account i.e., Joint Current Account No.1555, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam, in the name of the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Chennai and the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram. He has further ordered that the said compensation amount be treated as the amount withheld for payment, and be paid to the person, as decided by a Civil Court or by any other Appellate Court of Law.
34. Though, the competent authority, vide proceedings dated 26.04.2007, has directed the amount to be remitted back to the Government account and also observed that payment of compensation to the person or persons interested would be decided only by a Civil Court, he has not taken any steps to refer the dispute to the Court of competent civil jurisdiction.
35. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to refer to Section 3-H(3), which states that when several persons claim an interest on 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. As stated supra, though, the competent authority vide order dated 5.3.2007 has rejected the claim of Mr.Mathiaharan, still he had a doubt as to whether the amount determined, in so far as the abovesaid extent of land can be paid to the petitioners, and therefore, after obtaining a legal opinion, passed orders dated 26.04.2007 and from the said order, it is clear that in view of the dispute between the claimants to the said sum, the competent authority was not in a position to determine the persons, who in his opinion are entitled to receive the amount.
36. When a reference was required as provided for in sub section 4 of Section 3-H of the Act, which states that 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, the said authority did not refer the dispute to the Court, immediately. The dispute has arisen on 28.2.2007 and 5.4.2007, when two other persons, other than the petitioners have made rival claims. As per section 3H(4) of the Act, the Competent authority, ought to have referred the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, in 2007 itself. As the said authority has failed to discharge his statutory duties, to make a reference under Section 3-H (4) of the Act, the petitioners were constrained to file a Writ Petition No.16541 of 2011, for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram, to refer the claim of the petitioners, in relation to the payment of compensation for the property bearing No.30, Madhavaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District comprised in Survey No.1425/1 (Part), 1425/2 (Part) and 1426 measuring an extent of 2587 sq.mt., to the competent Civil Court, as contemplated under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
37. While defending the writ petition, filed seeking for reference under Section 3-H(4) of the Act, the competent authority, in the counter affidavit has given the following reasons, as to why he could not make the reference.
(i) So far no eligible pattadars has made any claim.
(ii) Due to the closure of Special Tahsildar (Unit-1), (Land Acquisition), National Highways 4, in which Madhavaram village lies in that jurisdiction.
(iii) Due to the disbandment of Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways 4, the staffs attached to this unit, was also relieved.
(iv) Moreover, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit -4, merged with the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Unit-5, in which no administrative staff available for the past one year.
(v) Due to the General Election Duty.
38. In the abovesaid writ petition No.16541 of 2011, the competent authority has averred that in view of the abovesaid reasons, the process of reference to the Court of competent Civil jurisdiction, could not be made. However, In the writ petition, the said authority has further submitted that the matter had been referred to the competent Civil Court on 02.08.2011. Recording the same, the writ petition has been disposed of. When the competent authority was not in a position to determine the persons, to whom the amount determined has to be paid, he need not wait for any representation or application by any party, to refer the matter to the Civil court and he should have made a reference on his own.
39. Thus, it is clear that from 26.04.2007, the date on which the competent authority had ordered for a sum of Rs.2,14,30,967, to be remitted to the Government Account ie. Joint Current Account No.1555, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam, in the name of the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Chennai, the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram, the said amount, has been withheld by the competent authority in the said account, till 02.08.2011.
40. The factum of withholding payment of the abovesaid amounts has also been categorically admitted by the competent authority, at paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, filed in this writ petition. While denying the claim of the petitioners for payment of accrued interest on the amount of compensation already determined by the competent authority, at paragraph No.9, the competent authority has stated that "there is no provision to deposit the accrued interest in the Court for compensation amount withheld from payment, under the Act. Indisputedly, the amount determined has already been deposited in the Joint current account, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam, in the name of the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Chennai". Hence, in this writ petition, in sum and substance, both the authorities have submitted that the claim of interest on deposit amount is not sustainable.
41. The reference made under Section 3-H(4) of the Act, in so far as the dispute, between the petitioners, Mr.K.Mathiaharan and Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiyar, for an extent of 2587 sq.mts., in Survey Nos.1425/1(Part), 1425/2(Part) and 1426, Madhavaram, for payment of compensation, has been disposed of by a judgment and Decree in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011 dated 19.02.2013, in which the Civil Court, has held that the petitioners amounting to 14, are alone entitled to receive the compensation deposited by the competent authority and the rival claimants Mr.K.Mathiaharan and Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiar, are not entitled for any compensation amount. There is no appeal by Mr.K.Mathiaharan and the other rival claimant. The judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011 dated 19.02.2013, has become final. The learned Judge, has also declared that the petitioners are the proper persons to receive the award amount of Rs.2,14,30,967/-, lying in the Court deposit. He has further directed the said amount to be disbursed to them.
42. In the case on hand, though, an amount of Rs.2,14,30,967/- has been determined by the competent authority, the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram, the said amount has not been disbursed to the petitioners, on account of the dispute raised by Mr.K.Mathiaharan and Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiyar and only on 02.08.2011, a reference has been made by the competent authority, to the Court of competent Civil jurisdiction, which culminated into a judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2011 dated 19.02.2013. Thus, it is evident that from 26.04.2007 to 02.08.2011, the amount so determined, has not been paid to the landowners, the writ petitioners.
43. As per sub-section 5 of Section 3-G of the Act, if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3-G, is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application, by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. The District Collector of the concerned District, within whose jurisdiction, the property is situated, is the Arbitrator. As per sub-Section 5 of Section 3-H of the Act, when the amount determined by the Arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the Arbitrator may award interest, at nine per cent per annum, on such excess mount from the date of taking possession, under section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.
44. As per sub-section 6 of Section 3-H of the Act, 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 provision of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit. Thus, it is clear that the Central Government is statutorily obligated to deposit the amount, so determined, by the District Collector cum Arbitrator, with interest.
45. A combined reading of Sections 3-G (5) and 3-H(5) of the Act, makes it clear that either of the parties, who is aggrieved over the amount determined by the competent authority, ie., either the Highways department or the landowner or the person interested, can prefer an application to the Arbitrator / District Collector, and as per Section 3-H(5) of the Act, the Arbitrator / District Collector, has ample powers to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the excess amount determined by him, which means, that if the landowner or person / persons interested have been deprived of payment of adequate compensation, by the competent authority, then the Arbitrator / District Collector, is not only empowered to determine the appropriate compensation to be paid to the landowner or the person / persons interested, but also empowered to award 9% interest, on the amount determined by him, from the date of taking over possession, by the Central Government, on behalf of Highways Department.
46. Though, Section 3-H(1) clearly indicates that the deposit by the Central Government with the competent authority, should be made before taking over possession of the land, the time for payment of the amount to the person / persons entitled thereto, has not been specified. But, reading of Rule 2 of National Highways (Manner of Depositing the amount by the Central Government with the Competent Authority for Acquisition of Land) Rules, 1988, makes it clear that the amount so determined by the Arbitrator under Section 3-G of the Act or the competent authority has to be deposited within seven days, in a separate Public Deposit Account in the Public Account of India, and the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 3-H of the Act shall apply to such deposit.
47. But a combined reading of Sections 3-H(1) and 3-H(5) of the Act, makes it clear that the date of entitlement of payment of compensation is referable to the date of taking over possession under Section 3-D of the Act, which states that when the objections made under sub-section (1) of Section 3-C, are disallowed, by the competent authority, under sub Section (2) of Section 3-C, and consequently, when a declaration is made by issuance of a notification, in the official gazette under Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D of the Act, on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 3-C of the Act, the land shall absolutely vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
48. As per Section 3-E of the Act, where any land is vested in the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 3-D and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 3-G with respect to such lands has been deposited under sub-section(1) of section 3-H, with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within sixty days of the service of notice.
49. A combined reading of all provisions stated supra, makes it clear that the determination of the compensation amount precedes taking over possession. Vesting of lands with the Central Government, under Section 3-D of the Act, is from the date of issuance of the notification, and the entitlement of owner or the person or persons interested, to receive compensation, is from the date of taking possession.
50. Though, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the landowners do not have any statutory right to claim accrued interest on the amount deposited in Government Account for the period from 26.04.2007 to 02.08.2011 and further submitted that the decision relied on viz., T.Chakrapani & Others, Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, National Highways Department, New Delhi and 5 others, reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 193, has been stayed by this Court, by a Hon'ble Division Bench and though, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has submitted that the petitioners have not sought for any accrued interest, on the deposit from 26.04.2007, in the earlier writ petition viz. W.P.No.16541 of 2011, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions for the reason that in similar circumstances, when the very same objections were raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, in W.P.No.25649 of 2006, dated 02.03.2007 [Padmavathi v. National Highways Authority]. This case has rejected the objections, regarding payment of interests. In the abovesaid writ petition, an argument has been advanced by Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, that the Government have discharged their duties in depositing the amount. But, if the competent authority, had failed in his obligations to act in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of the Act, the Central Government should not be penalised. A contention has also been made that there is no provision in National Highways Act, 1956, for payment of interest. It is also contended that in view of Section 3-J of the said Act, nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) shall apply to the acquisition under this Act and therefore, payment of accrued interest, on the sum deposited, does not arise.
51. Dealing with the objections with reference to statutory provisions under Sections 3-G(5), 3-H(5) & (6), Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian, at paragraph No.16, has observed as follows:
16. However, there is a provision in Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to seek arbitration if the amount awarded by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to the parties. Under Section 3-H(5), the Competent Authority becomes liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum, if on arbitration, the compensation gets enhanced. But the interest is awardable only on the excess amount (difference between the amount awarded by Arbitrator and the amount awarded by the Competent Authority) and it is payable from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit. Section 3-H(5) and 3-H(6) read as follows:
(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 per cent 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. At paragraph No.18 & 19, this Court, further observed as follows:
18. In the light of the above provisions, it is clear that there is a lacunae in the National Highways Act, inasmuch as there is no provision for the Award of interest if the payment due under the Award is delayed for an unduly long period of time. Under such circumstances, the Court is obliged to look into equity. The right to acquire the property is actually an infringement on the property rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Therefore, there must be a provision fixing a time limit for disbursing the amount of compensation awarded and there must also be a provision for payment of interest if such disbursement is delayed beyond a reasonable time. The Rules extracted in paragraph-17 above also do not throw any light on the time limit within which the Competent Authority has to disburse the amount or the interest payable if the amount is not disbursed within the time limit.
19. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the parties, in whose favour an Award was passed on 18.3.2006, should not be made to suffer, especially when the Competent Authority failed to refer the matter to the Court under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. If the Competent Authority had referred the dispute under Section 3-H(4), the parties would have at least got appropriate directions for depositing the money into a Bank account and got a nominal rate of interest from 18.3.2006. Now a period of more than 11 months have passed from the date of determination of the compensation amount and the first respondent has taken a stand in paragraphs-11 and 13 of the counter-affidavit that there is actually no need for the Competent Authority to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Competent Authority should be directed to deposit the compensation amount together with simple interest at 6% p.a. from 18.3.2006 till the date of deposit and also refer the dispute under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. Ultimately, at paragraph No.20, this Court has issued the following directions. The decision in W.P.No.25649 of 2006, dated 02.03.2007 [Padmavathi v. National Highways Authority] squarely applies to the facts of this case.
52. In the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai, Vs. R.Karuppaiah and another [CMA(MD) No.650 and 651 to 680 of 2013], the competent authority and the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, passed an order under Section 3-G of the Act, determining the compensation at Rs.25.58 per sq.mt. -= Rs.1036 per cent, for the wet land and Rs.10.88 per sq.mt. = Rs.435 per cent for the nanja land. He has also added 10% solatium.
53. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the landowners preferred an application before the Arbitrator / District Collector, Madurai and the said authority confirmed the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority Thereafter, the landowners filed, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, to set aside the award and prayed for enhancement of compensation. Upon assessment of the evidence adduced, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, set aside the award passed by the competent authority and passed fresh awards fixing the compensation at Rs.10,480/- per cent. The learned Judge also added 30% solatium, 12% additional solatium and 9% interest and thereafter, 15% future interest. For arriving at the market value, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, considered the evidence adduced by the landowners and also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs. Palaniappan, reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 266 and added 10% of the said amount for each year. Based on the principles laid down in Special Tahsildar (LA), Vs. Vadivel, reported in 2010 (4) MLJ 813, and 2010 (4) MLJ 461, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, deducted 20% towards developmental charges and added 10% on the compensation as per the National Highways Act and further awarded 9% interest per annum on the amount determined from the date of possession, till deposit. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Arbitrator / District Judge, the Project Director, National Highways Authority, has filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions.
54. The main ground of challenge before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of this High Court was that in view of Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, the determination of compensation under the National Highways Act and Land Acquisition Act, 1894, differ. Hence, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be made applicable for determining the compensation under the National Highways Act. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai, has also contended that the decision in Lalita and another vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 165, has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the decision of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma in T.Chakrapani & Others, Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, National Highways Department, New Delhi and 5 others, reported in 2011 Writ L.R. 193, has also been stayed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. It has also been contended that the scheme provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be made applicable to the cases arising out of National Highways Act, 1956.
55. However, perusal of the order made in CMA [MD] Nos.650, 651 to 680 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013, shows that in view of Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956, the landowners have conceded that they are not entitled to 30% solatium and other items of compensation. Having regard to the judgments stated supra, while confirming the liberty, granted by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, to submit a revised calculation, after the outcome of the legal proceedings stated supra, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of CMA Nos.650, 651-680 of 2013, dated 30.08.2013, has partly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai and reduced the compensation amount at Rs.12,000/- per Cent and added 10% statutory solatium, and on the amount, further added 9% interest from the date of taking possession, till the date of deposit.
56. Therefore, though it is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Judgment in T.Chakrapani's case has been stayed by the Hon'ble Bench of this Court, the final decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the above said CMAs, would come to the rescue of the writ petitioners, as regards payment of interest on the amount due and payable to the land owners, from the date of taking possession. As rightly pointed out by Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners that 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 ought to have immediately referred the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the land is situated.
57. Once the amount is determined by the competent authority, it is due and payable to the landowner or the persons interested. In lieu of lands acquired from them, appropriate compensation in terms of money is determined and paid to the landowners or the persons interested. In the case on hand, a dispute has arisen, when both Mr.K.Mathiaharan and Mr.M.N.Arunachalam Chettiyar, have sought for compensation. Had the competent authority, referred the dispute then and there i.e., in the year 2007 itself, under Section 3-H(4) of the Act, the learned Principal District Judge, Ponneri, would have directed Rs.2,14,30,967/-, i.e., the amount determined by the competent authority to be deposited in any nationalised bank and that the said amount would have fetched interest payable to the person or persons interested. But the competent authority has failed to refer the dispute which has necessitated the petitioners to file W.P.No.16541 of 2011 and only on 02.08.2011, the competent authority has referred the dispute to the Court. Even otherwise, when the amount was deposited in the Joint Current Account No.1555, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam, in the name of the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Chennai and the competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram, the amount deposited would have fetched interest. When the landowner's money is deposited in the bank, in the joint Account of the authorities, owing to the dispute between the parties, it is inappropriate to deny that the accrued interest on such deposit, which is otherwise due and payable to the land owners or the persons interested. The deposit came to be made only due to the dispute. At no stretch of imagination, the authorities can make any claim over the amount deposited in the Joint Account, to be their money, so as to make a claim over the accrued interest. If the amount determined as compensation is due and payable to the landowners or the persons interested, consequently, the accrued interest on such deposit should also be paid only to them. Neither NHAI nor the competent authority can claim that the accrued interest on the amount deposited, is their money. The claim for retention of interest lacks bonafides and opposed to the principles of equity, justice and good conscience.
58. What is justice, equity and good conscience is explained by the Supreme Court in Shri Rattan Lal Vs. Shri Vardesh Chander and Others, reported in 1976 (2) SCC 103, and in the words of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishna Iyer, The concept of 'justice, equity and good conscience' comes into play in the absence of any specific legislative provision. In India and in other colonies during the imperial era a tacit assumption had persuaded the courts to embrace English law (the civilizing mission of the masters) as justice, equity and good conscience. Further, the Apex Court while considering the abovesaid concept of 'justice, equity and good conscience' an English common law, at paragraph No.21 held as follows:-
This is the genesis of the idea that Indian 'good conscience' is English Common Law during the reign of Empress Victoria. The imperatives of Independence and the jural postulates based on the new value system of a developing country must break off from the borrowed law of England received sweetly as 'justice, equity and good conscience'. We have to part company with the precedents of the British-Indian period tying our non-statutory area of law to vintage English law christening it 'justice, equity and good conscience'. After all, conscience is the finer texture of norms woven from the ethos and lifestyle of a community and since British and Indian ways of life vary so much that the validity of an anglophilic bias in Bharat's justice, equity and good conscience is questionable today. The great values that bind law to life spell out the text of justice, equity, and good conscience and Cardozo has crystallised the concept thus:
Life casts the mould of conduct which will some day become fixed as law.
Free India has to find its conscience in our rugged realities and no more in alien legal thought. In a larger sense, the insignia of creativity in law, as in life, is freedom from subtle alien bondage, not a silent spring nor hot-house flower.
59. What was ventilated before this Court, at the time of filing of the writ petition was, that there was a failure on the part of the competent authority to refer the dispute, which he was statutorily obligated to do so. At this juncture, there is no need for inclusion of any prayer for accrued interest on the deposit made in the Joint Current Account No.1555, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam and it is suffice that the petitioners seek for a prayer to enforce the statutory duty, under Section 3-H(4), which the competent authority has admittedly failed to perform.
60. When the competent authority chose to refer the dispute to the Court of competent jurisdiction, on 2.8.2011, the said authority ought to have deposited the amount determined alongwith the accrued interest from 26.4.2007 to 2.8.2011. Neither NHAI nor the competent authority can plead that they would retain the interest with them and pay only the amount determined as compensation. They cannot enrich on the amount due and payable to the landowner or the persons interested. Just because the amount determined and payable to the landowners or the persons interested could not be paid, owing to the dispute, the accrued interest on the deposit would not become their money. The authorities cannot claim any right or interest in the amount determined, due and payable to the landowners or the person interested, just because it was deposited in their Joint Account, pending adjudication of the dispute between the rival claimants. Therefore, the quantum of waiver of interest does not arise.
61. Reading of sub-section 5 of Section 3-H, makes it clear that the Arbitrator, while determining the appropriate compensation, in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, may award interest at nine per cent per annum on such excess mount from the date of taking possession under section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.
62. In other words, when the Arbitrator, declares that appropriate amount due and payable to the landowners or the persons interested, has not been properly determined by the competent authority, and consequently, enhances the amount, with a direction to pay the statutory interest, from the date of taking over possession, the only interference that could be made is that the landowner or the person / persons have not only been deprived of, appropriate compensation, but also prompt payment i.e., from the date of taking possession and in such circumstances, the appropriate amount hitherto not determined and paid, by the competent authority, has to carry an interest of 9% per annum, on such excess amount, from the date of taking possession under Section 3-D of the Act, till the date of actual deposit thereof.
63. At this juncture, this Court also deems it fit to extract paragraph No.15 of the judgment in the Competent Authority Vs. Bangalore Jute Factory and others reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477, as follows:
"Normally, compensation is determined as per the market price of land on the date of issuance of the notification regarding acquisition of land. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of the notification so that the land owners are adequately compensated. Reference may be made to:
(a) Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Rajkumar Johri and others [1992 (1)SCC 328]
(b) Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. [1994 (1) SCC 92]
(c) Haji Saeed Khan & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. [2001 (9) SCC 513] In that direction the next step is what should be the crucial date in the facts of the present case for determining the quantum of compensation. We feel that the relevant date in the present case ought to be the date when possession of the land was taken by the respondents from the writ petitioners. This date admittedly is 19th February, 2003. We, therefore, direct that compensation payable to the writ petitioners be determined as on 19th February, 2003, the date on which they were deprived of possession of their lands. We do not quash the impugned notification in order not to disturb what has already taken place by way of use of the acquired land for construction of the national highway. We direct that the compensation for the acquired land be determined as on 19th February, 2003 expeditiously and within ten weeks from today and the amount of compensation so determined, be paid to the writ petitioners after adjusting the amount already paid by way of compensation within eight weeks thereafter. The claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the appropriate authority. We express no opinion about other statutory rights, if any, available to the parties in this behalf and the parties will be free to exercise the same, if available. The compensation as determined by us under this order along with other benefits, which the respondents give to parties whose lands are acquired under the Act should be given to the Writ Petitioners along with what has been directed by us in this judgment.
64. As per the decision of the Apex Court, cited supra, when, the date of payment of compensation amount determined by the competent authority is referable to the date of taking over possession, then, the landowners or the persons interested, are entitled to interest, from that date also. In the case on hand, possession has been taken in 2007 itself. As there were rival claims, Rs.2,14,30,967/- the amount determined in respect of the lands measuring 2587 sq.mts., in Survey Nos.1425/1(Part), 1425/2(Part) and 1426, Madhavaram, had been retained in the Joint Current Account No.1555, Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam, from 26.04.2007 onwards and that the same has been deposited into the Court only on 02.08.2011. When the statutory provision, contemplates payment of 9% interest for the amount due and payable to the person or persons interested from the date of taking possession under Section 3-D till the date of actual deposit thereof, the petitioners, who have not committed any fault, should not made to suffer and be deprived of the accrued interest on the said amount. The delay in making a reference to the Court of competent jurisdiction is purely on the part of the competent authority.
65. The Supreme Court has held that when matters relating to acquisition of lands, for national highways, the limited objection, which, the landowner or the persons interested is confined only to the use of land and that the scope of objection of the landowner, is very limited. All that the landowner can seek for, is payment of adequate compensation. Right to property is a Constitutional Right. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. PUCL, reported in 2009 (8) SCC 46 and in State of M.P. Vs. Narmado Bachoo Andolan, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 639, held that right to property could be considered as a human right.
66. At this juncture, it is pertinent to record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount determined by the competent authority, deposited in the Court, was lateron deposited in Canara Bank, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District and after the adjudication of the dispute in LAOP No.156 of 2011, dated 19.02.2013, the landowners, withdrew the amount, along with the accrued interest on the deposit of Rs.2,14,30,967/-. The said fact also supports the case of the petitioners that had the said amount of Rs.2,14,30,967/- been deposited in the Court in 2007, immediately, after the dispute, the Court in turn would have deposited the amount in any Nationalised Bank and after the adjudication, the landowners, would have received the compensation with the accrued interest from 2007 onwards, instead of 02.08.2011. The only difference is that between 26.4.2007 to 2.8.2011, instead of deposit in the Court, it was in the Joint Account of NHAI and the competent authority. Just because, it was deposited in their joint Account during the interregnum, it is not their money. Ultimately, it is due and payable only to the landowners or the persons interested.
67. Once the amount due and payable to the land owner or the persons interested, is determined by the competent authority and for some reasons, directed to be deposited in a separate Public Deposit Account, it does not become public money, so as to enable the authorities to claim that the accrued interest on the amount deposited can be denied to the landowners or the persons interested. Hence, this Court is of the view that the accrued interest on the said amount should be paid to the landowners or person / persons interested. In the light of the decisions and discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, being the landowners are entitled to the accrued interest, for the compensation amount of Rs.2,14,30,967/-. The rate of interest shall be 9% on the amount determined.
68. In view of the above, the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), No.1/54 2S Butt Road, St. Thomas Road, Chennai 16, the 2nd respondent, is directed to compute the interest on the said amount, for the period between 26.04.2007 and 02.08.2011 and also the subsequent period, till the date of payment and consequently, deposit the same with the competent authority Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur Districts at Kancheepuram., as per Section 3-H(1) of the Act and thereafter, as per sub Section 2 of Section 3-H, the competent authority shall pay the amount, to the writ petitioners. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
03.12.2013 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ars/skm To
1. The Competent Authority & Spl. Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways Schemes, Kanchipuram & Thiruvallur Districts at Kanchipuram.
2. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) No.1/54 2S Butt Road, St. Thomas Road, Chennai - 16 S.MANIKUMAR.J, skm W.P.No.30548 of 2013 03.12.2013