IMPORTANT POINT
The Collector has the authority to award interest on compensation re-determined under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ensuring equitable compensation for landowners deprived of their property.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The moot question which arises for consideration in the instant petition is whether the Collector, while making award under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is competent to award interest on the compensation amount re-determined by him thereunder.

Facts

2. The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass. The land of the third respondent was acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for planned development of the area by the petitioner. The award under Section 11 of the Act was declared on 20.9.1986 at uniform rate of Rs. 3.47 per sq. yard. Some of the tenure holders, feeling aggrieved by the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court decided Reference No. 71 of 1987 and 64 of 1988 by a common order dated 28.8.1998 and the compensation for the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 90 per sq. yard apart from 30% solatium. The Court also granted 12% interest from the date of preliminary notification, i.e. 7.7.1984, till the date of taking possession as per Section 23(1A) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for period of one year from the date of possession and 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of actual payment as per Section 28 of the Act. The third respondent, who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, on basis of the award of the Court dated 28.2.1998, sought enhancement of the compensation by invoking Section 28-A of the Act. The application was filed on 22.5.1998, well within three months from the date of award of the Court dated 28.2.1998. The Collector, by impugned order dated 2.5.2022, has passed award in favour of the third respondent, enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 90 per sq. yard, along with other benefits as had been granted by the Court in the aforementioned references. Resultantly, the award of the Collector also includes interest for the period post taking over of the possession. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed.

Submissions of Counsel for the Parties

3. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Collector, while deciding application under Section 28-A of the Act, is not competent to award interest. The said power is vested solely in the Court by virtue of Section 28 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has placed various provisions of the Act to emphasize that under the scheme of the Act, the Collector has power to award interest only under Section 34. It is confined to cases where the compensation amount determined by the Collector under Section 11 while passing the award is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land. It does not extend to award made by the Collector under Section 28-A of the Act. It is also urged that it is only the Court which could award interest in case any reference is made to it under Section 28-A(3), as in such an eventuality, it can take recourse to the powers conferred upon it under Section 28, but which is not available to the collector.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the purpose of inserting Section 28-A was to ensure award of compensation at uniform rate to all persons who are deprived of their land by the State exercising its power of eminent domain. The object of the said provision inserted through amendment was to remove discrimination in grant of award for lands acquired under the same notification. The Collector under Section 28-A of the Act is required to re-determine the compensation amount on basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Resultantly, all benefits which have been given by the Court while passing the award would also be admissible to the person invoking Section 28-A of the Act. The contention that although the Collector would not have