Summary
The Supreme Court held that landowners could challenge non-award of statutory acquisition interest through a writ petition under Article 226. Such an omission was outside the issues referable under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, so reference was not an alternative statutory remedy barring the writ. Interest was payable when the statutory conditions were fulfilled. The Union’s appeals, including connected matters, were dismissed; the merits of the High Court’s interest calculation were not challenged.
Issues
- Whether non-award of interest after compensation redetermination had to be challenged through a statutory reference instead of a writ petition.
Provisions considered
- Sections 18 and 28A(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894The specified reference issues did not encompass an omission to award statutory interest; reference was therefore not an alternative remedy for that grievance. (¶¶ 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42)
- Sections 28 and 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Interest is statutory and payable when the respective conditions are satisfied; writ relief remains confined to interest contemplated by these provisions. (¶¶ 25, 30, 31, 34, 37, 41, 43)
Held
- Section 18 specifies disputes over measurement, compensation amount, payees and apportionment. A dispute concerning non-award of interest under Sections 28 or 34 does not fall within those specified matters. The same reasoning applies to reference following Section 28A redetermination. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- Interest under Sections 28 and 34 is statutory; once the relevant conditions are met, payment cannot be defeated by treating it as a compensation-reference dispute. Its inclusion in an award when granted does not alter the remedy for an omission to award it. (¶¶ 30, 31, 34, 37, 38, 41)
- Article 226 was the proper remedy for the non-award grievance here. Sections 18 and 28A(3) did not supply an alternative statutory remedy requiring rejection of the writ petitions. Writ jurisdiction cannot authorize interest outside the terms contemplated by Sections 28 and 34. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44)
- The appellants did not challenge the High Court’s judgment on the substantive merits of the interest entitlement, so the Supreme Court did not re-examine those merits. Connected appeals based on the same High Court ruling failed as well. (¶¶ 45, 46, Connected appeals)
Result
Union’s appeals and connected appeals dismissed. High Court’s entertainment of the writ petitions upheld; substantive interest merits were not challenged in these appeals.