SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
WPC 1525/2022



Advocates:
['ANKIT SINGHAL', '', 'ASHISH MITTAL', 'A G', '', 'DHIRAJ KUMAR WANKHEDE']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

W.P.(C). No. 1525 of 2022

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Nathulal Agrawal, aged about 53 years, R/o.

Ketka Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

National Highway Authority Of India, through : its Chairman, G5, G6,

Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.

2.

The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway No.

43, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3.

National Highway Authority of India, through : the Project Director,

Project Implementation Unit, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4.

The Collector, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

5.

The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

6.

Executive Engineer, PWD, National Highway Division, Behind BSNL

Office, Near New Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Sarguja,

Chhattisgarh.

7.

The Additional Commissioner, Sarguja Division (Arbitrator U/s 3 (G)(5)

of National Highway Act, 1956) District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate

For Respondents/State

: Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order On Board

06/04/2022

1.

The petitioner in this case is a land looser, whose lands were acquired

in the year 2017, regarding which, award was passed on 28.12.2017.

The award was challenged, before the Arbitrator on which the

arbitration award was passed on 30.06.2018. In the original award,

there was direction for payment of interest @ 12% per annum . In

terms of Section 30 (6) of Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

2

Act, 2013 (in short, ‘the Act, 2013’), the petitioner is claiming interest at

the rate of 15% on the basis of Section 80 of the Act, 2013. Therefore,

it is prayed that appropriate order be passed.

2.

Learned State counsel opposes the petition and the submission made

in this respect.

3.

Considered on the submissions.

4.

Section 80 of the Act, 2013 is as follows :-

“ Section 80. – Payment of Interest. – When the

amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited

on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector

shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at

the rate of nine percent per annum from the time of so

taking possession until it shall have been so paid or

deposited:

Provided that if such compensation or any part

thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one

year from the date on which possession is taken,

interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum shall be

payable from the date or expiry of the said period of one

year on the amount of compensation or part thereof

which has not been paid or deposited before the date of

such expiry.”

5.

On perusal of this provision, it is clear that according to circumstances,

which may occur, the land looser shall become entitled 15% of

interest, in whose case the payment of compensation was not paid

within a period of one year from the date of taking possession. The

said section further indicates that 15% would be payable only for the

period beyond one year from the date the amount fell due.

6.

According to the submissions of the petitioner, the petitioner has

received the compensation in the year 2020 and 2021, therefore, in

3

such a case, the claim of the petitioner needs to be examined. Hence,

this petition is disposed off at motion stage. The petitioner is granted

liberty to file fresh representation before the respondent No.4-Collector

within a time limit of 15 days. On filing of such representation, the

District Collector shall consider on the clam of the petitioner taking into

consideration, the provision under Section 80 of the Act, 2013 and

take decision on the same at the earliest preferably within a period of

90 days.

7.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid direction.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)

Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top