IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.P.Colabawalla, M.M.Sathaye, JJ.
Hatim Fidaali Rajkotwala - Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021
Decided On : 06-10-2023
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION AND INTEREST - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 77, 80 - The court interpreted Sections 77 and 80 of the 2013 Act, emphasizing the obligation of the Collector to deposit compensation with the appropriate authority in case of disputes regarding title. The court concluded that the failure to do so warranted the payment of interest at specified rates, influencing the decision to award interest to the Petitioners from the date of possession until payment was made.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, owners of properties acquired under the 2013 Act, sought directions for the release of compensation and interest on the awarded amount after the compensation was deposited but not disbursed due to disputes over heirship and title.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector failed to deposit the compensation with the appropriate authority as required under Section 77(2) of the 2013 Act, leading to the entitlement of the Petitioners to interest under Section 80.
Issues: Whether the Petitioners were entitled to interest on the compensation amount due to the delay in disbursement caused by the Collector's failure to deposit the amount with the appropriate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector's obligation to deposit compensation under Section 77(2) was triggered by the Petitioners' claim of heirship, and the failure to do so resulted in the application of interest provisions under Section 80.
Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, awarding them interest on the compensation amount at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter until payment was made, and directed the Respondent to pay the awarded amounts within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
M.M.SATHAYE,J. - Rule. The learned AGP waives service for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 also waives service. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.
2. These two Petitions arise out of land acquisition under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (for short "the 2013 Act"), between the same parties but in respect of two different properties. The contentions in both the Petitions are the same and therefore, they are being conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment.
3. The subject matter property in Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021 is Rajkotwala Building, standing on land bearing City Survey No. 4337 of Bhuleshwar Division, at 16, Ibrahim Rehmatullah Road, J.J. Hospital, Mumbai-40003 and the subject matter property in Writ Petition No. 2966 of 2021 is Rukaiya Mansion, standing on land bearing City Survey No. 4338 of Bhuleshwar Division at 14, Ibrahim Rehmatullah Road, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400003. The Petitioners are owners of 25% undivided share in the property which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021 (Rajkotwala Building) and full owners of the subject matter property of Writ Petition No. 2966 of 2021 (Rukaiya Mansion.
4. By these Petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking a direction to Respondent No. 1 (Land Acquisition Officer) to release the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the subject matter properties and also seeking a direction to pay interest on the awarded amount as provided under the 2013 Act. The matters are arising out of LAQ Nos. 18/2019 and 19/2019, both dtd. 30/12/2019.
5. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the matters, has fairly submitted that so far as prayer clause (I) is concerned in both matters [which seeks a direction to release the amount of compensation under the Award], the same does not survive because the amount of compensation under the Award is already received by the Petitioners during pendency of these Petitions. He however submitted that the second prayer regarding payment of interest on the awarded amount, is being seriously pressed.
6. Shorn of unnecessary details, following are the facts and circumstances, from which both the Petitions arise. By the aforesaid two land acquisition Awards dtd. 30/12/2019, the said subject matter properties were acquired and the compensation amount was determined. It is common ground before us that panchnamas and possession receipts are drawn on 3/2/2020 in respect of both subject matter properties. Even before the possession receipts were executed, Respondent No. 2 (The Acquiring body) has deposited the amount of the Awards with Respondent No. 1, on 6/1/2020. On the same date, when the amount was deposited by Respondent No. 2, letters were issued to the original owners / Awardees, calling upon them to submit their identity documents and bank details for payment of compensation. It appears, and is not disputed, that these letters dtd. 6/1/2020 were issued by Respondent No. 1 in the name of the original owners/ Awardees who were no more at the relevant time. It appears from the record that the present Petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of the original owners, contacted Respondent No. 1 and by a common letter dtd. 27/1/2020, issued through their lawyer, informed Respondent No. 1 that the copies of the Awards have not been received by them and further made it amply clear that they intend to challenge the said Awards. The record further shows that thereafter, till 19/11/2020, no communication took place from Respondent No. 1. On 19/11/2020, Respondent No. 1 issued letters, again in the name of original owners/ Awardees calling upon them to submit documents, including copies of bank pass-book, canceled cheque, Pan Card, Aadhar Card, documents of witnesses, Indemnity Bond and 'documents of heir-ship'
The court established that under the 2013 Act, the Collector must deposit compensation with the appropriate authority in case of disputes regarding entitlement, and failure to do so results in the ob....
The obligation of the Collector to deposit the compensation amount in the court as per the J&K State Land Acquisition Act, and the entitlement of interested persons to statutory interest under Sectio....
The acquisition process does not lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation has been tendered to the landowners and possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.
Land acquisition - No notice was issued to the writ petitioners before compensation amount was deposited by way of revenue deposit, the same would not result in compensation being payable in terms of....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person reta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceeding does not lapse under Sec. 24 of RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013 if the compensation for the acquired land is already depos....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.