Delay by landholders in seeking redetermination does not negate their right to statutory interest under the Land Acquisition Act when statutory adjustments have been mandated by the court.

ORDER :

THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL

1. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Munjaal M. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short as the “Corporation”) seeking for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 09.04.2025 issued by the respondent namely the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Savli, asking the petitioner to deposit the interest amounting to Rs. 49,47,19,349/-, under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( in short the Act’2013), as per the draft award approved by the State Government on 08.04.2025.

3. Before proceeding with the matter, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein is the beneficiary of the lands acquired under the Act’2013, with respect to which, the award under the Act’2013 for determination of compensation was passed on 18.08.2017. The sole ground of challenging the communication sent by the Deputy Collector namely the competent authority in the matter of redetermination of compensation by applying Factor ‘2’ and interest under Section 80 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT is that the landholders had approached this Court with a substantial delay, inasmuch as, the original award towards compensation for the lands in question under Section 26 of the Act’2013, was passed on 18.08.2017, by applying Factor ‘1’ for the Village:Asoj (where the land in question lies) being classified as an “Urban Area”.

4. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the award dated 18.08.2017 was passed strictly in conformity with the notifications issued by the State Government dated 25.04.2014, 29.07.2016 and 10.11.2016. The compensation determined by the competent authority was duly deposited at the relevant point of time and the possession of the land in question was then handed over to the petitioner-Corporation on 22.08.2017 and 31.08.2017.

5. The subsequent notifications classifying the area in question as “rural area”, where the land in question situated, modifying the list of ‘urban areas’ had been issued by the State Government. The challenge to the notifications dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 issued by the State Government was sustained by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8734 of 2019 and allied petitions, which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2018. With the quashing of two notifications dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018, the benefit of Multiplying Factor ‘2’ was made applicable treating the area in question as ‘rural area’.

6. Even after declaration of law vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2018, none of the landholders approached this Court or the competent authority seeking for redetermination of compensation by applying Factor ‘2’. It was argued that under the Scheme of the Act’2013, the competent authority became functus officio after declaration of the award and it was only on the application made by the landholders, modified/amended/ supplementary award could have been passed in light of the decision of this Court.

7. As the landholders remained silent upto the year 2024, when they approached this Court for the first time, in the writ petitions wherein orders were passed for grant of benefit of Factor ‘2’, appended from pages no. ‘61’ to ‘85’; benefit of Section 80 interest (9% and 15%) cannot be accorded to them.

8. It was vehemently argued that for the delay on the part of the landholders, they cannot be provided