Bombay High Court
Sushma Murlidhar Ghadge & Another vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 13 December, 2013
Author: A.S. Oka
Bench: A.S. Oka, S.C. Gupte
ash 1 wp-4121,4123.13-group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4121 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.4122 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.4123 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.4124 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.4125 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.4126 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.4127 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.4128 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.4129 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.4130 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.5998 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.5999 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6000 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6001 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6002 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6003 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6004 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6005 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6006 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6007 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6487 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6488 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6489 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6514 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6515 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6516 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6517 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.6518 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION NO.6519 OF 2013 with WRIT PETITION NO.7308 OF 2013
WP NO.4121 OF 2013
Sushma Murlidhar Ghadge & Another. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4122 OF 2013
Abhiman Pandurang Pandhre. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4123 OF 2013
Digambar Devrao Bhosle,
(Since deceased through Lrs)
Lakshman Digambar Bhosle & Others. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::
ash 2 wp-4121,4123.13-group
WP NO.4124 OF 2013
Muktabai Ramchandra Suryavanshi
(Since deceased through Lrs.)
Nagnath Ramchandra Suryavanshi. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4125 OF 2013
Jaya Ankush Aldar. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others.
ig .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4126 OF 2013
Arjun Krishna Survase. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4127 OF 2013
Ambadas Govind Salgar. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4128 OF 2013
Maruti Udhhav Bhosle & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::
ash 3 wp-4121,4123.13-group
WP NO.4129 OF 2013
Narayan Ganpati Nagre. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.4130 OF 2013
Nagnath Bhimrao Salgar. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.5998 OF 2013
Vs
Latif Babu Shaikh. .. Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.5999 OF 2013
Motiram Fatru Shaikh & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.6000 OF 2013
Ambadas Tukaram Sawant,
(Since deceased through Lrs.)
Shambhaji Ambadas Sawant (Pawar) & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.6001 OF 2013
Changdev Bhimrao Khatal. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::
ash 4 wp-4121,4123.13-group
WP NO.6002 OF 2013
Pandit Sonaba Pawar. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6003 OF 2013
Dattatray Krushnat Survase. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6004 OF 2013
Mahadev Sopan Aldar. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6005 OF 2013
Bakshubhai Iman Shaikh & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6006 OF 2013
Ganpat Appa Waghmode. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6007 OF 2013
Jagganath Dada Sawant. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::
ash 5 wp-4121,4123.13-group
WP NO.6487 OF 2013
Prabhakar Appa Waghmode. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6488 OF 2013
Mahaling Shivmurti Gadgade,
(since deceased through Lrs.)
Sushila Mahaling Gadgade and Another. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.6489 OF 2013
Bharat Keshav Jawle & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.6514 OF 2013
1. Ramjan Manik Shaikh,
(Since decesed through Lrs.)
a. Yunus Ramjan Shaikh & Anr.
2. Saifan Ramjan Shaikh. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6515 OF 2013
Vasant Bhagwan Gund. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::
ash 6 wp-4121,4123.13-group
WP NO.6516 OF 2013
Digambar Babaji Gavli. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6517 OF 2013
Kalawati Bhagwan Gund,
(Since deceased through Lrs.)
Vasant Bhagwan Gund. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.6518 OF 2013
Nagnath Tamanna Dhotre. .. Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
-
WP NO.6519 OF 2013
Padminibai Namdev Bhosle & Others. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
WP NO.7308 OF 2013
Gopinath Digambar Patil & Others. .. Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents
--
Shri Vineet B. Naik, Senior Advocate along with Shri Tejas Deshmukh
and Shri Ritesh V. Kulkarni and Shri Samrat K. Shinde for the Petitioners
in all the Petitions.
Shri V.G. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in all the petitions.
Shri G.S. Hegde along with Shri C.M. Lokesh and Ms. Vaibhavi S. Gole
i/by A.R. Bhole & Co for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in all the petitions.
-
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::
ash 7 wp-4121,4123.13-group
CORAM : A.S. OKA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ
DATE : 13TH DECEMBER 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J )
1. On 16th September 2013, this Court directed final disposal of these Petitions at the admission stage. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are more or less identical. For the sake of convenience, we are making a reference to the facts of Writ Petition No.4121 of 2013.
A notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 ( for short "the said Act") was issued on 16th August 1988. A notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act was issued on 27 th March 1989. A notice/order under Sub-
section (2) of Section 33 of the said Act was issued on 1 st September 1989 unilaterally fixing compensation. In Writ Petitions filed by some of the owners, the notices/orders dated 1 st September 1989 were set aside and a direction was issued to the State to refer the cases to the Collector under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act.
Ultimately, the notices under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act were issued calling upon the petitioners to remain present on 19 th February 2001. On 19 th March 2010, again a notice under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act was issued. It is undisputed that the negotiations were held between the Petitioners in these Petitions and the State Government on 17th April 2010 when an agreement was ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 ::: ash 8 wp-4121,4123.13-group arrived at by which the Petitioners/Claimants agreed to accept total compensation at the rate of 2,50,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand ) per Hectare inclusive of interest from the date on which the possession was taken over. The present Petitions have been filed for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately release the amount of compensation as agreed in terms of the Settlement dated 17th April 2010. Another prayer is for directing the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the compensation agreed between the parties from 17 th April 2010 till the date of realization of the amount.
2. There is a common reply filed by Mrs. Shakuntala Vishwanath Gaikwad, Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Solapur, wherein, it is stated that the awards have been made on 22nd May 2013 under Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the said Act.
Details of the awards have been incorporated in the chart enclosed with the said affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( for short "MIDC") has tendered across the bar a letter dated 3 rd December 2013 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of MIDC by which the State Government has permitted release of compensation in terms of the awards.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::ash 9 wp-4121,4123.13-group
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that undisputedly the agreements between the Petitioners and the State Government reached on 17 th April 2010 under which the Petitioners agreed to accept total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare. He urged that notwithstanding the orders of this Court, the awards in terms of the said Agreements were not made and the awards have been belatedly made on 22 nd May 2013. He pointed out that the present Petitions have been filed in the month of April 2013. He invited our attention to the judgment and order dated 18 th November 20091. He relied upon the law laid down by the said decision. He submitted that in the present cases, there is inordinate delay in passing the awards from the date of agreements i.e. 17 th April 2010 and therefore, as held by the Division Bench of this Court, the Petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid amount of compensation payable under the awards from 17 th April 2010 till the date of payment of compensation. He pointed out that the said decision of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the MIDC. He invited our attention to the various provisions of the said Act and in particular Section 33 of the said Act. He submitted that Sub-section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act starts with a non-obstante clause. He urged that the compensation ought to have been awarded in terms of the agreements immediately on 1 Writ Petition No.2419 of 2009 (Ashok Appasaheb Sathe & Ors v. The collector, Pune & Ors with other connected Writ Petitions).
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:04 :::ash 10 wp-4121,4123.13-group execution of the agreements and in any event, within a reasonable period from the date of the Agreements. He submitted that in the facts of these cases, the actual agreements in writing were executed two months after 17th April 2010 but the agreements contemplated by Sub-
section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act were reached on 17 th April 2010. He, therefore, urged that there is a delay of more than three years in passing the awards and that is the reason why the Petitioners should be compensated by ordering payment of interest.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the MIDC urged that firstly the agreements contemplated by Sub-section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act have to be in writing. Secondly, he contends that on the basis of the agreements in writing, the awards cannot be mechanically made and notices have to be issued in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the said Act. He invited our attention to the awards made in these cases. He pointed out that the rate arrived at by way of agreements was treated as a proposal which was sent for approval of the MIDC and that the MIDC approved it on 24th August 2011. He submitted that the procedure contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the said Act, the Claimants as well as MIDC are entitled to a notice and the Collector will have to confirm the existence of the agreements before passing the Awards. He invited our attention to Section 38 of the said Act. He submitted that the interest is payable in accordance with ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 11 wp-4121,4123.13-group Section 38 the said Act at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment of compensation. He submitted that there is no provision under the said Act for grant of interest on the compensation till the date of payment. He submitted that interest cannot be ordered to be paid. In any event, he submitted that the decision relied upon by the Petitioners of the Division Bench of this Court is not a binding precedent as the attention of this Court was not drawn to Section 38 of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that the said decision was per incuriam. He submitted that unless there is an approval of the State Government, the amount of compensation cannot be disbursed and that the approval of the State Government has been granted only on 3rd December 2013. The learned AGP reiterated that interest is payable under the said Act only in accordance with Section 38 of the said Act and in any case, interest at the rate of 10% per annum cannot be granted. He submitted that the date of the agreement will have to be taken as the date on which the written agreement was executed by and between the parties. He would, therefore, urge that no interest is payable.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to Section 33 of the said Act which reads thus:-
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 :::ash 12 wp-4121,4123.13-group "33.(1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be determined in accordance with such agreement.
(3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid.
[Provided that, no compensation exceeding such amount as the State Government may by general order specify, to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector without the previous approval of the State Government or such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.] [(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3), if after the case is referred to the Collector under that sub-section but before he has finally determined the amount of compensation, such amount is determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, the compensation shall be determined by the Collector in accordance with such agreement].
(4) Before finally determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall give an opportunity to every person to be compensated to state his case as to the amount of compensation.' [(5) In determining the amount of compensation, ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 13 wp-4121,4123.13-group the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subject to the modifications that the references in the said sections 23 and 24 to the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (J), were references to the date 4(of the service or publication of the notice under sub section (2) of section 32 of this Act in the manner for the time being laid down under this Act], and the references to the time or date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 were references to the date of the publication of the notice under Sub-section (l) of section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette.].
[Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-
section the date of the service of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act shall before the 8th day of June 1967mean the date on which the notice is served in the manner laid down in section 52 of this Act; and on and after the 8th day of June 1967 the date of the publication of a notice under the said sub-
section (2) of section 32 shall be the date on which the notice is published in the Official Gazette.].
(6) For the purpose of determining the amount of compensation-
(a) the Collector shall have power to require any person to deliver. to him such returns and assessments as he considers necessary;
(b) the Collector shall also have power to require any person known or believed to be interested in the land to deliver to him a statement containing, as far as may be practicable, the name of every other person having any interest in the land as co-owner, mortgagee, tenant, or otherwise, and the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits (if ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 14 wp-4121,4123.13-group any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement.
(7) Every person required to deliver a return, assessment or statement under sub-section (6) shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 175 and section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.
(8) The Collector may hear expert witnesses if it be necessary to do so in any particular case.
(9) The Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall be entitled to enter in and inspect any land which is subject to proceedings before him.
(10) The Collector shall dispose of every case referred to him under sub-section (3) for determination of compensation as expeditiously as possible and in any case within such time as may be prescribed by rules.
(11) The Collector shall determine the amount or cost incurred in any case disposed of by him under the section, and by what persons and in what proportions they are to be paid. "
[(12) Where any case is referred to any Collector under sub-section (3), the State Government may, at any stage, by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, transfer it to any other Collector, and upon such transfer, unless some special directions are given in the order, the Collector to whom the case is transferred may hear and dispose of the case from the stage at which it was transferred or the case may be heard and disposed of by him de novo.]".
6. Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act provides that if any land is required for the purposes of development, the State ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 15 wp-4121,4123.13-group Government is entitled to acquire the land by publishing a notice in the official gazette giving necessary particulars. Before publishing a notice under Sub-section (1) thereof, the State Government is under an obligation to issue notice calling upon the owner or the person interested to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired.
Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the said Act provides that when a notice under Sub-section (1) is published in the official gazette, from the date of publication, the land notified therein vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. After vesting as aforesaid, under Sub-section (5) thereof, the State Government is empowered to issue notice calling upon the person in possession to surrender or deliver the possession of the said land to the State Government.
7. Now coming to Section 33 of the said Act, Sub-section (2) thereof provides that amount of compensation can be determined by an agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated. If there is such an agreement, the amount of compensation shall be determined in accordance with such agreement.
If no such agreement can be reached, under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act, the State Government is under an obligation to refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition. Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act makes it clear that, no compensation in ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 16 wp-4121,4123.13-group excess of such amount as the State Government may by general order specify, to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector. If the Collector wants to determine an amount in excess of the amount specified by the State Government, he is required to obtain prior approval from the State Government in that behalf. The proviso to Sub-section (3) will operate only when Sub-section (3) is applicable.
The Sub-section (3) of Section 33 will apply only when there is a failure to arrive at an Agreement. In the present case, we are concerned with Sub-section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act. It provides that even after the State Government refers the case in accordance with Sub-
section (3) to the Collector for determination of compensation, there can be an agreement executed between the State Government and the person to be compensated. If there is such an agreement, the compensation shall be determined by the Collector in accordance with the said agreement. Looking to the language of the Sub-section (3A) which starts with a non-obstante clause, once there is an agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated after the matter is referred to the Collector in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act, there is no choice for the Collector but to determine compensation in accordance with such agreement.
Thus, there can be an Agreement between the State Government and person to be compensated at two stages. The first stage is before making a reference to the Collector under Sub-section (3) of Section 33 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 17 wp-4121,4123.13-group of the said Act. If there is no such Agreement, the State Government is under an obligation to make a reference to the Collector in accordance with Sub-section (3) for determination of compensation. Even after such a reference but before passing an Award under Sub-section (5), there can be an Agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated as regards the compensation on account of acquisition of the land. In both the cases, it is mandatory that the compensation shall be paid in accordance with such Agreement.
8. A submission was canvassed that even after execution of such Agreement which is covered by Sub-section (3A), the provisions of Sub-section (4) will have to be followed by giving opportunity of being heard to the persons concerned. We must note here that Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the said Act contemplates opportunity to be given only to the person to be compensated to state his case as to the amount of compensation. The notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the said Act to a person to be compensated is contemplated to enable the said person to state his case as to the amount of compensation.
Obviously, once there is an agreement governed by Sub-section 3A, the inquiry contemplated by Sub-section (5) of the said Act is dispensed with inasmuch as the Collector is under an obligation to determine compensation in terms of the agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated. In case of such agreement ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 18 wp-4121,4123.13-group executed before the determination of the compensation in accordance with Sub-section (5), the prior approval of the State Government is not contemplated. The prior approval of the State Government is contemplated only when the Collector determines the compensation in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act when there is no agreement reached between the State Government and the person to be compensated. Therefore, we find that once there is a legal and valid agreement as contemplated by Sub-section (3A) of Section 33, the MIDC has no role to play and all that remains to be done by the Collector is to pass a formal award in terms of the agreement.
9. At this stage, we turn to the awards made in the present cases as an argument is canvassed that the Collector issued notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 33 after the Agreement. Perusal of Paragraph 4 of the awards shows that after the matter was referred to the Collector, the affected persons applied for negotiations. Thereafter, a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the said Act was issued. It is true that there is a reference in the awards to the grant of approval to the proposal to pay compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare by the MIDC but according to us, the said approval is irrelevant as such approval for compensation payable in terms of Agreements is not contemplated by the scheme of Section 33 of the said Act.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 :::ash 19 wp-4121,4123.13-group
10. Therefore, once there is a lawful agreement contemplated by Sub-section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act, the Collector is under an obligation to make an award directing payment of compensation in terms of the agreement. It is obvious that such award has to be made expeditiously and atleast within a reasonable time from the date on which the Agreement is reached. On this aspect, the scheme of the said Act is completely different from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act, on the basis of a notice published in Government Gazette, there is a vesting of the land in the State Government. Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vesting can be in terms of Section 16 when the possession of the acquired land is taken over only after passing of the Award under Section 11 and only after the compensation is offered in terms of the Award. Only in exceptional cases, when Section 17 is invoked, the possession can be taken over of the acquired land even before an Award is made. But, in such a case, before the possession is taken, 80% of the estimated compensation has to be offered to the owner or the person interested. In case of acquisition under the said Act, the owner or person interested is divested of his rights in respect of the acquired land immediately on publication of a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the said Act in Gazette.
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 20 wp-4121,4123.13-group
11. There is a second aspect which is more important. Once
there is an award made in accordance with the agreement under Sub-
section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act, the Claimant or the person to be compensated is deprived of his remedy under Section 34 of the said Act of making an application for Reference to the Court for claiming enhancement in the compensation. The reason being that once the compensation is determined in terms of the agreement under Sub-
section (3A), the person to be compensated cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector as the compensation is determined in accordance with the agreement.
12. Coming back to the facts of the cases in hands, it is undisputed that the negotiations were concluded on 17 th April 2010 when the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare was agreed. The awards ought to have been made in terms of the agreement within a reasonable time. It is an admitted position that the agreements reached on 17 th April 2010 were executed in writing two months after 17 th April 2010.
There is an inordinate delay in making awards in terms of the settlement as the awards were belatedly made on 22 nd May 2013.
When the agreements were arrived at on 17 th April 2010, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the awards made three years thereafter were made within a reasonable time. As we have held earlier, once there is an agreement contemplated under Sub-section ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 21 wp-4121,4123.13-group (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act, nothing further is required to be done by the Collector and he has to grant compensation in terms of the agreement. In the cases in hands, this formal process has taken a long period of more than three years. We must note here that the vesting of the acquired lands in the cases in hands is of the year 1989. The relevant date for determination of the compensation is 16 th August 1988 as stated in the Awards.
13. Now we deal with the arguments based on Section 38 of the said Act. Section 38 applies to cases where amount of compensation is not paid or deposited before the possession of the acquired land is taken over in accordance with Sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 32 of the said Act. In such a case, there is a provision to compensate the person to be compensated by paying interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The Petitioners are not seeking interest under the provisions of the said Act. Their contention is that after having agreed to accept a lumpsum amount by way of compensation, for a period of more than three years, the compensation was not paid. This has to be understood in the context of the fact that the vesting relates back to the year 1989. Moreover, the agreements in writing which are executed record that a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Hectare will include interest from the date on which the possession was taken till the date of the agreements. Going by the submissions canvassed by the ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 22 wp-4121,4123.13-group learned counsel appearing for the MIDC and the learned AGP, even in terms of Section 38 of the said Act, the interest at the rate of 4% per annum will be payable from the date of agreements i.e. 17 th April 2010, till the date on which the compensation is paid to the Claimants as the agreements provide that the interest only upto the date of agreements is included in the agreed amount.
14. In the present cases, the Petitioners have taken recourse to a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Petitioners have suffered serious prejudice. They solemnly agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate way back on 17 th April 2010, obviously with the hope that they will receive the compensation within a reasonable time. But they were deprived of the same for a period of more than three years. By entering into an agreement, they forfeited their right to apply for enhancement of compensation as per Section 34 of the said Act. As held by the Division Bench in the decision relied upon by learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the Petitioners deserve to be compensated on account of inaction on the part of the Collector in complying with the mandatory provisions under Sub-section (3A) of Section 33 of the said Act under which he was under an obligation to make an award within a reasonable time from the date of the agreement. Thus, the Petitioners who were admittedly held to be entitled to receive compensation have ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 23 wp-4121,4123.13-group lost their title to the acquired land in the year 1989. With the legitimate expectation of receiving compensation within a reasonable time, they entered into agreements on 17 th April 2010. They agreed to accept a lumpsum compensation at the agreed rate which was inclusive of interest under Section 38 of the said Act. In the bargain, they forfeited their right to apply for enhancement under Section 34 of the said Act.
15. In the facts of these cases, we find that the agreements in writing were formally executed two months after 17 th April 2010 and in some cases, the agreements were executed on 29 th September 2010.
The written agreements contain a specific recital that the agreements were infact arrived at on 17 th April 2010. Therefore, undisputed position which emerges is that the concluded agreements were reached on 17th April 2010. As a reasonable time was available to the Collector from 17th April 2010 to make awards, in the facts of these cases, we propose to grant interest from the dates on which the agreements were executed in writing.
16. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this is a fit case to direct payment of interest on the unpaid amount of compensation from the respective dates of the written agreements. The question is what should be the rate of ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 ::: ash 24 wp-4121,4123.13-group interest. The interest has to be reasonable, but it must adequately compensate the Petitioner for the delay. Therefore, we are of the view that the interest will be payable at par with maximum rate of interest paid by the State Bank of India on the fixed deposits as of 2010. In the year 2010, rate of interest of the State Bank of India on the fixed deposits for a period of 3 to 5 years was 8.25% per annum. We propose to grant three months' time to the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioners/Claimants together with interest as stated above.
17. We must note here that in Writ Petition Nos.4125 of 2013, 4126 of 2013 and 4130 of 2013, the compensation amount has been already disbursed and, therefore, in these three Writ Petitions, a direction will have to be given only for payment of interest till the date of payment of compensation i.e. 24th January 2013
18. Hence, we dispose of the Writ Petitions by passing the following order:
ORDER :
(a) We direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioners/Claimants in terms of the awards dated 22nd May 2013 within a period of three months from today;::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 :::
ash 25 wp-4121,4123.13-group
(b) The amount of compensation shall carry interest at
the rate of 8.25% per annum from the respective dates on which the Petitioners have executed the agreements in writing with the State Government till the actual date of payment of compensation to the Petitioners;
(c) We make it clear that the aforesaid directions will apply to all the Writ Petitions except the Writ Petition Nos.4125, 4126 and 4130 of 2013 and in these Writ Petitions, interest will be payable on above terms upto the date on which the compensation has been paid to the Petitioners, which is 24th January 2013;
(d) There will be no orders as to costs;
(e) Considering the fact that the Petitioners have been
deprived of the compensation for a long time, we expect that the principal amount of compensation shall be released to the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible without waiting for expiry of period of three months;
(f) The Petitions are disposed of on above terms.
(S.C. GUPTE, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )
::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:44:05 :::