JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioner in the present writ petition had prayed for the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest calculated on Rs 2,06,43,507/- (Rupees Two Crores Six Lakhs, Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred & Seven only) @ 9% from the date of taking possession ie. 28.12.2017 and 15% from the date of expiry of one year from the Date of Possession to the Date of Amount Received ie on 20.07.2020 for acquisitions of land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No 117 & 119 situated at village Lalpur, tehsil Rudrapur, district Udham Singh Nagar for the purposes of widening existing NH-74;

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature Mandamus directing the respondents to pay statutory interest along with penal interest calculated on Rs 2,06,43,507/- (Rupees Two Crores Six Lakhs, Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred & Seven only) from the Date of Possession to the Date of Amount Received;

iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

iv. award Cost of the Petition.”

2. In fact the relief of payment of the interest, which has been determined by the petitioner to be payable, as referred to, in the relief clause is a self assessment which has been made by the petitioner for the deprivation of his land, which has been taken over by way of an acquisition under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner submits, that the petitioner would be entitled for an interest from the date of the possession i.e. 28.12.2017, and the claim of the interest, which would be payable on it would be rather 15% instead of 9%, which has been actually paid to the petitioner.

3. There are various contentions, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and this Court feels it apt to deal it with chronology. The first argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regards to the impact of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India. So far as the implications of Article 300A of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is not in dispute, even by the petitioner, that the land has been taken over as a consequence of the notification of the acquisition issued under the National Highways Act, 1956, and in lieu thereof, the award has also been paid along with interest @ 9%.

4. In that eventuality, where the award has been paid it cannot be said, that taking over of the land was not in consonance or was in violation, to the provisions of the law, Article 300A of the Constitution of India, will only be attracted when the possession is taken of the land of an owner, dehors to the provision and procedure prescribed under law, which would not be a case at hand, because here the controversy has to be splited into for its consideration, where the relief sought for, is confined for the payment of the interest at a particular claimed rate of interest from the date of taking over of the possession i.e 28.12.2017. Hence, the argument extended from the prospective that Article 300A of the Constitution of India, will not be sustainable.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has ventured to argue, that the petitioner would be entitled for the interest, because the concept of solatium and interest, which is contained under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, has been borrowed to be applied in the acquisition proceedings, which are held under the National Highways Act 1956, as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of the “Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh” as rendered in SLP (C) No.9599 of 2019. The relevant paragraph nos.29 and 31, 46 to 48, are extracted hereunder:-

29. Both, P. Vajravelu Mudaliar (supra) and Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra) clinch the issue in favour of the Respondents, as has been correctly held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging (supra). First and foremost, it is