IMPORTANT POINT
Remedy against non award of interest payable to landowners u/s 28 or 34 lies in writ petition under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

       In Civil Appeal Nos. ……… of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4689-4698 of 2012]

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. Nos. 1384 to 1392 and 1755 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the order dated 13.04.1999 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. Nos.5486-5494 of 1999 and order dated 13.07.1999 in W.P. No.11806 of 1999.

3. The issue involved in these appeals is short and in order to appreciate the same, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.

4. The first appellant is the Union of India through Secretary, Revenue Department, Pondicherry and the second appellant is the Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer. The appellants herein were respondents whereas the respondents herein, who are the landowners, were writ petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court.

5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act“), the Government of Pondicherry on 22.12.1986 issued a Notification seeking to acquire land bearing Survey No.2 Pt. of an extent of 3 Hec. 83 Ares 50 Cen situated in village Pillaichavadi, Pondicherry for public purpose, namely, establishment of Central University (Phase-V). This was followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 12.03.1987. The acquired land included the lands belonging to the respondents herein.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an Award (No.2/1987) under Section 11 of the Act on 01.06.1987 and determined the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.318/- per Are.

7. One landowner–Govindammal, whose land was also acquired under the same notification, dissatisfied with the rate of compensation awarded by the LAO, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for re-determination of the rate of compensation for his acquired land. The Reference Court, by its award dated 09.05.1989 in reference case No. L.A.O.P. No.337/88 enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land from Rs.318/- per are to Rs.1000/- per Kuzhi (Rs. 1868/- per Are).

8. The respondents (landowners) having come to know of the passing of the award by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation referred above filed applications under Section 28A of the Act to the Collector (LAO) on 08.08.1991 for re- determination of compensation payable to them for their acquired land in the aforementioned acquisition proceedings.

9. Though the Collector made an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 28A of the Act, on the applications made by the respondents but no final orders were passed. The respondents, therefore, filed writ petitions (W.P No. 10649 of 1996 etc.) in the High Court at Madras.

10. The High Court, by order dated 19.08.1998 allowed the writ petitions in part and directed the Collector to dispose of the applications filed by the respondents under Section 28A of the Act. The Collector accordingly disposed of the applications by passing orders on different dates between 15.11.1994 and 22.11.1994 and re-determined the compensation payable to the respondents.

11. The respondents, having noticed that the Collector though re-determined the compensation but had failed to award interest on compensation under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act, felt aggrieved of the orders of the Collector and filed a representation to the Collector praying therein for award of interest on the compensation. By order dated 14.12.1998, the Collector rejected the respondents' representation.

12. Felt aggrieved, the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court and challenged therein the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.12.1998 of the Collector declining to award interest on the compensation determined by him under Section 28-A proceedings.

13. The appellant