SANKARAN v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 11836 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** SANKARAN AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, CHETTIKUNNEL, MANAKKAD P.O., THALAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) OFFICE OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI - 685 584. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI (THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA) SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON 22.5.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 2 **T.R. RAVI, J. -------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.11836 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner’s property in Sy.No.829/5-9 in Manakkad Village, having an extent of 0.0236 hectares, along with improvements thereon, was acquired by the Government for construction of the Papputy-Vengalloor road, pursuant to the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. Ext.P1 is the award passed by the 1[st] respondent. Possession was taken as per mahazar dated 20.11.2015. Ext.P2 communication dated 30.12.2019 was issued by 1[st] respondent showing the value of the improvements. The passing of the award as well as taking of possession was much after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into force on 1.1.2014. As per Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, in cases where land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) and no award has been passed, all the provisions relating to compensation under the 2013 Act will apply. Ext.P1 W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 3 award was passed under the old Act and a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act was also made, since the petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation granted. The Sub Court, Thodupuzha, by Ext.P3 order dated 26.08.2016 found that the award is a nullity and returned the reference to the 1[st] respondent for necessary action. Since no action followed, the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the 2[nd] respondent may be directed to determine and award the compensation for the land value and the improvements. 2. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that a supplementary award was passed in the case of the petitioner under the 2013 Act and an amount of Rs.1,65,784/was credited to the petitioner’s account on 16.02.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not made any valid request under section 64 of the 2013 Act, after receiving the amount as per the supplementary award. Subsequently, on 13.6.222, an additional counter affidavit was filed stating that market value was re-determined and approved on 28.01.2019 as per proceedings No.C7-2164/99 and that the detailed valuation statement was approved on 03.08.2019 by the District Collector. The requisitioning authority deposited the necessary amount to W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 4 the office head of account on 24.12.2021, due to covid pandemic. The Supplementary draft award is stated to have been passed by the District Collector on 25.10.2022 and the award amount remitted to the account of the petitioner on 09.02.2022. The dates stated in the additional counter affidavit do not appear to be correct. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and a petition seeking to produce additional document Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is the supplementary award passed on 3.2.2022. It is contended that Ext.P5 does not consider the interest payable on the additional compensation for the period from 20.11.2015 to 16.02.2022. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to 9% interest on the additional amount paid for the one year of taking possession and 15% interest till the date of payment. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. There is no serious dispute regarding the facts. Admittedly the award was initially passed under the 1894 Act and later a supplementary award was passed after determining the compensation under the 2013 Act. The payment as per the supplementary award has also been made. The only question is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 5 compensation determined as per the supplementary award, from 2015 to 2022. The Government pleader submits that there is no provision for the grant of interest. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh [AIR 1961 SC 908]** , to submit that the general rule in the matter of payment of interest on the compensation for the period between deprivation of possession and payment of compensation cannot be inferred to have been excluded merely because a subsequent Act regarding acquisition and payment of compensation has come into force. Going by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even in the absence of a specific provision regarding payment of interest, the right of a person who is dispossessed of land, is not taken away. Apart from that, Section 34 of the 1894 Act provides for payment of interest as claimed by the petitioner with respect to the additional compensation awarded under the supplementary award. Section 80 of the 2013 Act also contains a similar provision. The mere fact that the acquisition was initiated under the old Act and was continued under the new act with respect to the payment of compensation, the right of the petitioner to receive interest on the amount awarded as compensation, for the period from W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 6 dispossession till the date of payment of compensation cannot be taken away. 5. The supplementary award was passed and amount credited to the petitioner's account only on 16.02.2022. The petitioner had filed the writ petition on 01.04.2022 and it was only pending the writ petition that the petitioner got information regarding passing of the supplementary award for the additional amount. The dispute regarding the payment of interest on the additional amount, which should also have been part of the award, has been finalised only by these proceedings. In the above circumstances, the right of the petitioner to challenge the award regarding the sufficiency of the amount granted cannot be taken away. 6. The writ petition is allowed, directing the 1[st] respondent to rework the interest payable on the compensation awarded to the petitioner, in accordance with law and pass a fresh award in that respect, at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the amount thus additionally awarded shall be paid to the petitioner soon after such determination. If the petitioner prefers an application regarding W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 7 the insufficiency of the amount awarded within one month from today, the same shall be treated as an application filed within time, by the competent authority and necessary action shall be taken thereon. Sd/- **T.R.RAVI JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C) No.11836/2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11836/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.50/2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.30/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN L.A.R.NO.38/2016 DT. 26/8/2016. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT. 10/2/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD DATED 03.02.2022