Ratti Ram vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO 11177 OF 2011

RATTI RAM … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11178 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

1. In land acquisition proceedings pertaining to Award

No. 79 of 1982-1983 in respect of the land belonging to

the appellants, this Court finally fixed the land value

at the rate of Rs. 76, 550/- per Bigha, in the Judgment

dated 03.08.2004 in Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Signature Not Verified

Ram Sharma and Other1.

Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2016.02.26 10:29:45 IST Reason: 1

(2004) 6 SCC 533 2

2. Once the land value is fixed by the Court, it refers

to the value of the land as per the Award passed by the

Collector. That should carry all eligible statutory

benefits. It appears that in the case before us,

statutory benefits have been denied for a short period on

the ground that the proceedings initiated at the instance

of the appellants, remained stayed before the Reference

Court. To quote from Paragraph-4 of the impugned

judgment:

“Learned Counsel for the appellant,

however, had submitted that the learned

trial court was not justified in declining

the relief of interest on the enhanced

compensation for the period during which

the reference proceedings had remained

stayed sine die and that relief at least

should be given by this Court. However,

this prayer of the appellant cannot be

accepted since he himself had got his

reference proceedings before the trial

Court stayed sine die and the Government

cannot be burdened with the liability of 3

interest for the delay in disposal of the

reference proceedings caused by the

appellant himself.”

3. We fail to understand how the appellants could be

denied the statutory benefits available under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) in respect of the value of this land fixed, merely

because there was a period of stay operating, may be in a

proceeding at the instance of the appellants. Those are

not relevant considerations or factors at all for the

purpose of grant of statutory benefits available to a

person, whose land has been acquired in terms of Section

28 of the Act. Section 28 reads as under:

“28. Collector may be directed to pay

interest on excess compensation. If the

sum which, in the opinion of the Court,

the Collector ought to have awarded as

compensation is in excess of the sum

which the Collector did award as

compensation, the award of the Court may

direct that the Collector shall pay 4

interest on such excess at the rate of

nine per centum per annum from the date

on which he took possession of the land

to the date of payment of such excess

into Court:

Provided that the award of the Court may

also direct that where such excess or

any part thereof is paid into Court

after the date of expiry of a period of

one year from the date on which

possession is taken, interest at the

rate of fifteen per centum per annum

shall be payable from the date of expiry

of the said period of one year on the

amount of such excess or part thereof

which has not been paid into Court

before the date of such expiry.”

4. There is no exclusion of any period contemplated on

whatever account under Section 28 of the Act. The only

reference is to the date of dispossession. Liability to

pay interest starts to run from that date. Therefore,

these appeals are allowed. It is directed that the 5

appellants shall be entitled to interest for the

compensation, as per Section 28 r/w Section 23(1A), in

respect of the land acquired from the appellants, on

value at the rate of Rs. 76, 550/- per Bigha for the

period of stay also, i.e., from 24.04.1997 to 27.09.2001.

5. We direct the Delhi Development Authority to compute

the amounts as above and deposit the same before the

Executing Court within a period of four weeks from today

which shall disburse the amounts to the appellants in

accordance with law.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

...............J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

...............J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] New Delhi;

February 17, 2016.

6

ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 11177/2011

RATTI RAM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No. 11178/2011

Date : 17/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Ms. Shobha, Adv.

Mr. Inder Singh, Adv.

Mr. Akanksha Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Shrey Dambhare, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv.

Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv.

for M/s Saharya & Co.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable

Judgment.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)