A recent legal case has seen the High Court partially allowing the appeal related to a Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute. The judgment addressed the entitlement of statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period, with specific details highlighting the denial of interest on the enhanced compensation. Find out how the High Court’s decision impacts the parties involved in this ongoing dispute.
Facts
- The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad partially allowed the First Appeal Nos. 4083-4092 of 2016.
- The appellant expressed aggrievement and dissatisfaction towards the common judgment and order dated 17.07.2017.
- Specific details of the partial allowance and the aspects where the appeal was partially allowed were highlighted.
- The appellant’s contentions regarding the parts of the judgment that were not in their favor were likely discussed.
Arguments
- Appellant’s advocate argues that there was a delay of five and a half years in preferring the first appeals.
- The High Court, while enhancing compensation, should not have imposed interest liability for the delay.
- Appellant claims that claimants should not be entitled to statutory benefits for the delayed period due to the significant delay.
- Appellant refers to various court decisions to support their arguments against the imposition of interest for the delayed period.
- The order condoning the delay by the High Court did not include any conditions to deny statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.
- Appellant contends that the High Court’s decision to grant statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period should be upheld as the order condoning the delay has finalized.
- Original claimants sought parity in compensation with other landowners, leading to the appeals being brought by the Executive Engineer of the acquiring body.
- Opposing the appeals, Respondents’ advocate argues against the justification of granting statutory benefits and interest on the enhanced compensation for the delay period.
- All claimants/land owners are entitled to the same compensation for the land acquired for the same project vide the same notification.
- This is in accordance with the settled proposition of law.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Analysis
- No fault found with the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay.
- Order condoning the delay has attained finality as it was not challenged by the appellant.
- Dispute in the present appeals is only regarding the award of statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.
- Huge delay of five and a half years in preferring the appeals before the High Court.
- Prayer made to dismiss the present appeals.
- Issue is whether claimants are entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.
- In the case of Dhiraj Singh (supra), interest on enhanced compensation was denied for the period of delay in approaching the High Court.
- High Court condoned the delay and entertained the appeals by enhancing compensation at par with other land owners/claimants for the same project.
- Similar view expressed in the case of K. Subbarayudu (supra) where delay in appeal was condoned without interest for the period of delay.
- No condition was imposed during condonation of delay regarding interest on enhanced compensation.
- Appellant is a public body and should not bear the liability of interest for a delay not attributed to them.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Decision
- The appeals are allowed in part.
- Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the delay in appealing is denied to the original claimants.
- The rest of the High Court’s judgment and award is confirmed.
- The High Court’s judgment awarding interest on the enhanced compensation is quashed and set aside.
- The High Court’s judgment is modified to reflect the denial of interest on the enhanced compensation.
Case Title: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2020 INSC 45)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000246-000255 / 2020
