Public policy prevails over private interests; interest on delayed payments for additional compensation is lawful as per principles of restitution and upheld by judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Hon. Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.

1. Heard Shri Sunil Gupta & Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar for the petitioner in Writ-C No.38069 of 2022 and Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar for the petitioner in connected Writ-C No.2674 of 2023; Shri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by S/Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Zain Mazbool, Pranav Tandon and Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, [YEIDA] and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the State respondents in both the writ petitions.

2. The Writ-C No.38069 of 2022 has been preferred by the petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the petitioner and quashing demand letter dated 20.09.2022 sent by YEIDA (Annexure 1) to the extent that the said letter pertains to the demand of 64.7% Additional Compensation (inasmuch as other demands mentioned in the letter already stand challenged by way of other legal remedies adopted by the petitioner as stated in para 5 of the present writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ of declaration that YEIDA is not entitled to recover any amount as 64.7% additional compensation unless it has first fixed the factors and, applying those factors, decided the sum, if any, for collecting such compensation from the petitioner on the basis of the principle of proportionality as enunciated in the Full Bench judgment of High Court dated 25.8.2011 in the Gajraj case and mandated in GO dated 29.8.2014 read with judgment of Supreme Court dated 19.05.2022 in the case of YEIDA v. Shakuntala Educational Welfare Society

AND

In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus directing YEIDA not to recover from the petitioner any amount other than an amount of 64.7% additional compensation @ Rs.517.60 per sq. mtr. for its plot of 2023500 sq. m.”

3. The Writ-C No.2674 of 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for following reliefs:-

“(I) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned demand notice dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure 1) sent by the Respondent no.2 to the extent that the said notice pertains to the demand of 64.7% Additional Compensation.

(II) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to not to recover from the petitioner any amount by way of interest on the alleged amount of Additional Compensation.”

4. Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions are similar, with the consent of parties, they are being decided by this common judgment and the facts of Writ-C No.38069 of 2022 are being taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION

5. This much is averred that a vast area of land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh in District Gautam Budh Nagar for public purposes. The said area of land was acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. After the land was acquired, YEIDA invited applications for the allotment of plots in the area developed by it. In response to the notice inviting applications for such allotment, various allottees including the petitioner applied.

6. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having the aim and object of imparting education. The YEIDA allotted a plot of land viz. Plot No.02, Sector 17A to the petitioner havi