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 Section 35 of the Act.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The short grievance projected by the petitioners in this petition is that their proprietary land measuring 18 marlas and 3 sarsai ["the subject land"] comprising in Khasra No. 565 situated at Village Gadi Garh was acquired along with other lands falling in different khasra numbers for widening of road from Satwari Airport to R.S. Pura. Acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents No. 3 for acquiring the subject land culminated into final award bearing No. LA/928-31, dated 12.01.2012. As per the final award, a total compensation of Rs. 8,43,333/- was assessed by respondent No. 3 with respect to the subject land. The petitioners claim that they being owner of the subject land approached the respondents for release of the compensation amount but respondent No. 3 instead of releasing the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioners vide its order dated 16th September, 2013, made Reference to the Court of District Judge, Jammu in terms of Section 31 of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act ["the Act"]. As mandated by law, the compensation was not deposited by respondent No. 3 in the Court. The Reference was assigned to 1st Additional District Court, Jammu, who vide its order dated 17th October, 2016 decided the Reference and found the petitioners alone entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 8,43,333/- for the subject land. It was in pursuance of the order of the Reference Court dated 17th October, 2016, the respondents in the month of March, 2017 transferred the said amount of compensation in the account of petitioner No. 5. The amount transferred was only the principal amount and no interest accrued thereon was paid to the petitioners when in terms of Section 35 of the Act, they were entitled to statutory interest. It is in this background, the petitioners, after serving a legal notice upon the respondents and after having failed to persuade the respondents, have filed the instant petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of compensation actually paid to them in the month of March, 2017, which, otherwise, was payable in the year 2010.

2. On being put on notice, respondent No. 3 has filed his objections. Respondent No. 3 has not denied the acquisition of proprietary land of the petitioners measuring 18 marlas 3 sarsai. It is submitted that a fair and just compensation for the subject land was awarded in terms of the final award passed on 12th January, 2012, however, the payment could not be released in favour of the petitioners, as some other persons claiming to be the tenants of the subject land also put forth their claim over the compensation for the subject land. This dispute was raised by two persons, namely, Shiv Ram S/o Surjan Dass and Amar Singh S/o Gopal Singh. In view of the aforesaid dispute the matter was referred by respondent No. 3 to the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu under section 31 of the Act. It is the admitted case of respondent No. 3 that neither compensation was paid to the petitioners nor was the same deposited in the Court, as is mandated under section 11 of the Act. Respondent No. 3 further submits that compensation amount was not deposited in the Court as there was no such direction from the Reference Court to do so. It has also come in the objections filed by respondent No. 3 that it was only after the Reference was decided by the Court vide order dated 17.10.2016, the matter was taken up with the indenting department for release of requisite funds so that the payment could be released in favour of the petitioners. The payment was ultimately released in favour of the petitioners immediately after the requisite funds were received. Respondent No. 3 has also denied the contention of the petitioner that possession of the land was taken over in the year 2010. Respondent No. 3 claims that possession of the subject land was taken over only after passing of the final award in the year 2012.

3.