Allahabad High Court
Jaswant Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 April, 2014
Bench: Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Review Petition In Case :- WRIT - C No. - 73515 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,M.K. Singh,S.F. Naqvi,S.F.A. Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Re-Delay Condonation Application Heard learned counsel for the parties. No counter affidavit has been filed to the affidavit filed alongwith the application for condonation of delay.
We are satisfied with the explanation given in the affidavit for condoning the delay and accordingly this application is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
Re-Review Petition Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi alongwith Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 4 and have perused the record.
The land of the petitioners was acquired by notifications issued in the year 2003 and the possession of the land was taken from the petitioners on 22nd August, 2003. By means of an agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents which was under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,26,78,650/- was made to the petitioners on 16.10.2004. Then, after a gap of nearly six years, on 12.7.2010 the petitioners moved a representation for payment of interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment. In December, 2010 the petitioners filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% interest for the subsequent years for the delayed in payment of compensation to the Petitioners.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to decide the Representation dated 12.07.2010 of the Petitioners within a stipulated period.
iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 20.12.2010, the review of which has been sought by this review petition. For ready reference, the order dated 20.12.2010 is reproduced below:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the respondent no. 4-NOIDA and have perused the record.
The case of the petitioners is that their land was acquired by the respondent-NOIDA. It is contended that though they have been paid compensation but the interest for the delayed payment has not been paid to the petitioners. Along with this writ petition, the petitioners have not filed any award under which they have been paid compensation.
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 states that the payment of compensation has been made to the petitioners on the basis of an agreement entered into between the State and the petitioners.
The petitioners do not deny this fact but surprisingly no copy of the agreement has been filed along with this petition. In the absence of the same, the prayer made in this petition does not deserve to be granted. Even otherwise, if the compensation has been paid on the basis of the agreement and if there is any breach of agreement, it is for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and writ would not be the appropriate remedy.
This writ petition is thus dismissed. No order as to costs. "
Sri Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would be entitled to payment of interest at the rates specified under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as the Rules of 1997, (under which the agreement was entered into), do not provide for payment of interest and since the Rules are silent with regard to payment of interest, the provisions of the Act would automatically be made applicable. He has further submitted that the Rules cannot override the provisions of the Act and once the Act provides for interest to be paid on delayed payment, the same would be applicable even to the cases in which compensation is paid under the Rules of 1997.
Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State-respondents as well as Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 4 have, however, submitted that the compensation is paid under the Rules of 1997 on the basis of compromise and agreement which is entered into between the parties and thus there would no question of payment of interest from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment of compensation as all aspects regarding compensation, solatium and interest etc. are taken care of while determining the amount under the Rules of 1997. It has further been submitted that under the form of agreement as provided under the Rules of 1997 it is specified that no claim for any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation would be payable and the agreed compensation shall be accepted without any protest. It is thus submitted that once a party has accepted the amount of compensation and agreed not to claim any further amount, the interest as claimed is not acceptable. In support of this submission they have relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar AIR 2005 SC 2204. It is submitted that though the matter did not relate to Rules of 1997 but since the same relates to consent award having been passed between the parties, the ratio of the said judgment would be applicable. In the said judgment, in paragraph 9 it has been held that "after the consent awards were passed, statements were also made by the respective villagers declaring that they would not approach any Court for enhancement of the compensation for any other reason." Then in paragraph 15 it is observed that "it is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right to receive amount by way of solatium or interest can be waived." The same view has also been taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Daya Shamji Bhai AIR 1996 SC 133 wherein it has been held that once the parties have agreed to the amount under Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, then the award need not contain payment of interest, solatium and additional amount unless it is also a part of the contract between the parties.
On the contrary Sri Naqvi has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Others Vs. Government of Goa and Another (2011) 11 SCC 506. Having gone through the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the same does not relate to the award having been passed by way of agreement and hence the ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Rules of 1997 have been framed by the State of U.P. so that compensation be determined by way of agreement between the parties so that quietus is put to litigation and the dispute between the parties. It does not leave any scope for any further interpretation with regard to payment of interest, solatium etc. Though learned counsel for the review petitioners has vehemently argued that the provisions of the Rules would not override the provisions of the Act and once it is provided under Section 34 that interest at particular rates is to be paid for delayed payment (which would be from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment of compensation), yet we are of the opinion that the said Section 34 would not be applicable in the present case. When there is no provision made for payment of interest on compensation as determined on the basis of compromise or agreement, the other provisions of the Act which relate to interest, solatium etc. would actually not be attracted. Once the parties have agreed upon a particular quantum of compensation to be paid, the same is deemed to be inclusive of all the benefits given under the Act, which may be grant of solatium, interest or any additional amount. We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of the Rules of 1997 are not in conflict with Section 34 of the Act. The interest part has deliberately not been included in the Rules of 1997 for the clear reason that once the parties agree upon a particular quantum of compensation and party concerned is paid the said amount, that would end the entire dispute and the matter shall stand settled once and for all.
We have considered this aspect of the matter because such ground has been taken in the review petition, although we may mention that no such specific ground with regard to applicability of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was taken in the writ petition.
For the reasons given hereinabove, this review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.4.2014 p.s.
(Naheed Ara Moonis, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)