JUDGMENT :

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. –

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was the owner of a large extent of sugarcane land. The Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar issued a Notification dated 15-6-1961 under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) declaring that the appellant held 12,127.4 acres as surplus agricultural land. In pursuance of it, possession of 7407 acres and 33½ guntas of land at Sakarwadi and 2910 acres and 4 guntas in Lakshmiwadi was taken over on 25-5-1968. Possession of another 608 acres and 38½ guntas in Sakarwadi and 525 acres 1½ guntas in Lakshmiwadi was taken on 23-1-1976. Ultimately possession of the remaining 99 acres 13 guntas at Lakshmiwadi was taken on 6-4-1990.

3. On 13-11-1978 the appellant submitted its claim in regard to the entire lands (except the 99 acres 13 guntas which was taken subsequently) under Section 24(1) of the Act. Several reminders were sent by the appellant wherein the delay was highlighted and demand was made for payment of interest at 9% per annum. Ultimately on 13-12-2001 proceedings for determination of compensation were commenced by issue of notices for enquiry under Sections 24(1) and (2) of the Act. The second respondent made an award dated 30-3-2005 determining the amount due as Rs. 88,77,538.49 comprising Rs. 43,22,656.65 as compensation and Rs. 45,54,881.84 as interest thereon at 3% per annum from the date of possession to 31-3-2004. The said payment was accepted under protest by the appellant on 31-3-2005.

4. Aggrieved by the interest awarded only at the rate of 3% per annum, the appellant filed a writ petition (WP No. 6375 of 2005). The appellant sought quashing of the award insofar as it awarded interest at 3% per annum and prayed for award of interest at 9% from the date or delivery of possession till date of actual payment. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 97,66,189.l6 was due as on the date of writ petition (WP No. 6375 of 2005) being the difference in interest on calculating interest at 9% per annum on the principal amount instead of 3% awarded. The High Court dismissed the said petition at the admission stage by the impugned order dated 4-10-2005 on the ground that the prayer being only for payment of money (by way of interest), the writ petition was not entet1ainable and it was open to the appellant to pursue any other remedy that may be available. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

5. The following two questions arise for our consideration in this appeal :

(i) Whether the writ petition was for “recovery of money” and therefore not maintainable?

(ii) Whether the second respondent was justified in awarding interest, only at the rate of 3% per annum on the compensation payable under Section 25 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961?

Re: Question (i)

6. The writ petition was for a declaration that the notice dated 30-3-2005 informing the appellant that total compensation including interest for acquisition of 12,127.4 acres of land as Rs. 88, 77 ,538 was unjust and arbitrary and discriminatory insofar as it offered interest only at the rate of 3% per annum on the compensation amount and for a mandamus to pay the compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of surrender of possession to date of actual payment. The appellant contended in the writ petition that having regard to decisions of the Bombay High Court in Krishnakumar Vithalrao Jamdar v. State of Maharashtra and Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills v. State of Maharashtra wherein interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum in regard to compensation payable under the said Act, the second respondent acted illegally in awarding interest at a lesser rate of 3% per annum. Therefore, the writ petition filed by appellant did not relate to a simple money claim. It required adjudication in regard to the allegations of arbitrariness and discrimination on the part of the State Government and its of