JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

01. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are arising out of the proceedings related to the land acquisition of the same taluka, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However considering the facts of the case, Special Civil Application No.10244/2024 is considered as lead matter.

02. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – State of Gujarat has challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge (LAQ), Narmada Yojana & Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge allowed the execution petition and directed the respondent – Executive Engineer to make at the rate of 15% for the delayed payment for 220 months as provided under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

03. The brief facts leading to filing of all these petition are as under,

The lands owned by the original claimants situated in Village : Bhavda, Taluka : Daskroi, District : Ahmedabad were acquired by the authority concerned for the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal after following due procedure of law and, thereafter on 30.08.1993, an award came to be passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short), however, the original claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation and accordingly, the Reference Court, by an award dated 30.11.1999, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.18/-, against which, the State of Gujarat had filed First Appeals, which came to be disposed of. Accordingly as per the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, payments have already been made to the original claimants, who have also accepted it without any protect, however after a period of more than 8 years, the original claimants had filed recovery application before the District Court on 26.07.2011 inter alia claiming payment with interest on delayed payment and the learned Judge, by impugned order, allowed the said recovery applications and directed the authority concerned to make the payment at the rate of 15% on delayed payment for the month of 220 months for the remaining amount of compensation. The said order has been challenged by the State of Gujarat in all above writ petition.

04. Heard learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the petitioners and learned advocate, Mr. Yogin A. Bhambhani for the respondents.

05. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and against the settled proposition of law, therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. He submitted that as per the provision of Section 28 of the Act, the original claimants are entitled to get 9% interest over the awarded amount and after a period of one year, they are entitled for 15% interest, however as per the case of the prosecution, the State authority had to deposit Rs.1,10,943/-, however instead thereof, the State authority had deposited Rs.85,530/- before the concerned court on 22.05.2003, therefore, there was shortfall of Rs.25,413/-. He submitted that in fact, the aforesaid calculation is absolutely incorrect in view of the fact that the State authority had already deposited Rs.90,438/- before the concerned court on 22.05.2003, therefore, there was shortfall of Rs.20,505/-, therefore, the learned Judge has committed an error in passing impugned order, whereby the acquiring body is directed to pay the amount with 15% amount during the period between 22.05.2003 to 16.10.2021. He referred to Section 28 of the Act and submitted that plain reading of the said provision itself crystallize the position of fact that the claimants are entitled to get amount of compensation from the date of receiving the possession of the acquiring body and initially for a period of one year, they are entitled for 9% interest and after a period of one year, they are entitled for 15% interest on delayed payment. He, therefore submitted that admit