The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of interest for landowners in accordance with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the obligation of the Land Acquisition Collector to keep the decision pending on the application until the final determination by the higher Courts.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. Brief facts of the case are that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued on 11.02.2010 for acquisition of land for the purpose of development of roads for Sectors 81 to 95, Gurugram which included the land of appellants. Award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Gurugram,(in short “LAC”) on 14.06.2010 and Rs.60 lakhs per acre was awarded as compensation.

2. Co-sharers of the appellants filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court in case titled as “Mahender Singh @ Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana” vide award dated 17.04.2015 determined compensation @ Rs 1,81,01,217 per acre. Appeal filed against the award dated 17.04.2015 was allowed vide judgment dated 27.05.2016 rendered by this Court in RFA No.5316 of 2014 and other connected matters titled "Pushpender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another", awarding compensation @ Rs.3,75,70,419/- per acre from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, besides all the statutory benefits available to them under the relevant provisions of the Act. However, as per judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11913-11945 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8094-8126/2017) abovementioned compensation was ordered to be disbursed after making deduction of 15% towards development.

3. Meanwhile, application filed by the appellants before the LAC under Section 28-A(1) of the Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation was dismissed, vide order dated 31.05.2016 on account of non-prosecution. It has been specifically pleaded in the present appeal that when application under Section 28-A of the Act was dismissed for want of prosecution by LAC, no prior notice was served upon the landowners. It has been further averred that when the appellants visited the office of LAC on 11.05.2018 and enquired about their case, then they were informed by the officials/concerned Patwari that their petition stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 31.05.2016. Faced with this, they applied for copy of above order passed by LAC vide application dated 11.05.2018; received the same on 17.05.2018 and immediately thereafter filed the petition under Section 28-A(3) of the Act.

4. In reference filed under Section 28-A(3) of the Act, the Reference Court after recording that application under Section 28-A(1) thereof was maintainable vide order dated 03.03.2021, allowed the same and granted compensation in accordance with judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the appellants were deprived of interest from the date of award i.e. 17.04.2015 till the filing of the reference petition under Section 28-A(2) of the Act before the LAC.

5. By way of present appeal, judgment dated 03.03.2021 has been impugned to a limited extent and prayer has been made for grant of interest from the date of award by LAC; rather than the date of award by the Reference Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no notice was given to the appellants either before the scheduled hearing or after dismissal of their application in default. He further submits that once the appellants came to know about the impugned order, they immediately filed the present appeal after receiving a copy thereof on 17.05.2018, thus delay cannot be attributed to them and therefore, they are entitled for interest for the entire period.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel though does not deny that application under Section 28-A(1) of the Act was within limitation period, however, contends that as the same was dismissed in default, learned Reference Court rightly restricted the interest for the duration specified above.

8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the paper-book as well as the law cited at bar. I find substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.

9. This Court has discussed in deta