PRIYA VART AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA

                      PRIYA VART AND ANR.                                    ·A
                               v.
                         UNION OF INDIA

                           AUGUST 7, 1995.

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)                             B

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

       Compensation-Detennination of-High Court detennined-Compen-
sation taking into account that the land is situated interior-Held: Campen- C
sation awarded was just and fair. S.28-Award of enhanced interest and
interest on enhanced solatium-Held : Not entitled to since pendency for .
appeals in High Court or Supreme Court is not a ground for making further
enhancement.

       Large extent of lands in three villages including Khyala were ac- D
quired for planned development of Delhi. Compensation was determined
@Rs. 600, Rs. 400 and Rs. 200 per bigha to various categories of lands.
On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to a flat rate
of Rs. 3,000 per bigha. On further appeal, the High Court further enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per bigha. Since the petitioners claimed E
compensation @Rs. 14,000 per bigha, they preferred the Special Leave
Petition contending that as in an earlier case the claimants from other
villages had restricted the claim to Rs. 10,000 per bigha;

      The Court valued the lands at Rs. 10,000 per bigha, though it noted
that the lands possessed potentiality to increase compensation of Rs.         F
14,000 per bigha and therefore the petitioners were entitled to Rs. 14,000
per bigha.

      Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court

      HELD: 1. The High Court in the impugned judgment had noted that G
the entire village Tatarpur is located adjacent to Nazafgarh-Delhi Road
but the lands in Khyala are far interior to the lands in Tatarpur village.
The lands of the village Khyala start from northern boundary of village
Tatarpur and the acquired land is farther away towards north from the
road. In view of these facts it was found that determination of the com pen- H
                                     563
    564                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A sation at Rs. 10,000 was just and fair. In view of the distinguishing features
    explained by the High Court, there is no justification to further enhance
    the compensation. (565-D]

           2. The claimants would be entitled only to interest and solatium if
    their cases are pending from the date of notification till the date of decision
B   by the Reference Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 and
    the pendency of the appeals in the High Court or this Court would not be
    a ground for making further enhancement. (565-H; 566-A]

           Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754, followed.
c        Urned Industries & Land Development Co. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
    and Ors., (1995) 1 Scale 309 and SA. Jain College Tmst v. State of Haryana
    and Anr., [1995] 3 SCC 74, referred to.

          3. When the statute prescribed interest @6% per annum, it neces-
D sarily means only simple interest and not compound interest and pendency
      of proceedings is no ground to award compound interest. When the Act
    . prescribes payment of interest at a particular rate, it needs to be awarded
      at the rate prescribed and in no other way. (566-D]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
E No. 15806 of 1995.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.1994 of the Delhi High
    Court in R.A.F. No. 208 in 1975.

          Mahabir Singh for the Petitioner.
F
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquiring large extent of lands in three villages
G   including Khyala for planned development of Delhi, was published on 3rd
    September, 1957. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 31st
    August 1961, determined the compensation @Rs. 600 Rs. 400 and Rs. 200
    per bigha to various categories of lands. On reference, the District Court
    by its award and decree dated i9th March, 1975 enhanced the compensa-
    tion at flat rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha. On further appeal, the High Court
H   in the impugned judgment dated 16th September, 1994 further enhanced
                          PRIYA VART v. U.0.I.                            565

the compensation to Rs 10,000 per bigha. Since the petitioners claimed A
compensation @Rs. 14,000 per bigha, the special leave petition has been
filed for the difference of the amount.

      Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
as in an earlier case the claimants of other villages, viz., Tatarpur and
Basaidarapur had restricted the claims to Rs 10,000 per bigha, the Court         B
having noted that the lands possessed potentiality to increase compensation
to Rs. 14,000 per bigha, confined the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per bigha.
According to him, that would not form the basis for the limiting the
compensation to the lands in village Khyala. He further contends that it
was noted by the High Court that the lands were possessed of potential           C
value and the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the higher compensa-
tion @Rs. 14,000 per bigha. We find no force in these contentions.

       The High Court in the impugned judgment had noted that the entire
village Tatarpur is located adjacent to Nazafgarh-Delhi Road but the lands
in Khyala are far interior to the lands in Tatarpur village. The lands of the    D
village Khyala start from northern boundary of village Tatarpur and the
acquired land is further away towards north from the road. In view of these
facts it was found that determination of the compensation at Rs. 10,000 was
just and fair. In view of the distinguishing features explained by the High
Court, we think that there is no justification to further enhance the com-       E
pensation.

      It is next contended that this Court in Urned Industries & Land
Development Co. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1995) 1 Scale 309
and in SA. Jain College Trust v. State of Haryana and Anr., [1995] 3 SCC
74, held that the claimants will be entitled to the enhanced interest at 9       F
percent under the proviso to Section 28 for one year from the date of taking
possession and 15 percent thereafter till the date of deposit and also
enhanced solatium under Section 23(2) and that, therefore, the petitioners
also are entitled to that ratio in as much as the appeals were pending in
the High Court by the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition               G
(Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. We find no force in this contention also.

        In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754, a. Constitution
Bench of this Court had held that the claimants would be entitled only to
interest and solatium if their cases are pending from the date of notification
till the date of decision by the Reference Court between April 30, 1982 and      H
    566                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A September 24, 1984 and the pendency of the appeals in the High Court or
    this Court would not be a ground for making further enhancement. In the
    first of the two decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the
    petitioners, this Court dealt with the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) only, which
    was denied. In the second decision, the Court had no occasion to consider
    the question at hand. It cannot be conceded that a Bench of two Judges
B   had overruled the decision of the Constitution Bench. Therefore, there is
    no need for us to make a further reference to the Constitution Bench
    decision since the controversy has already been covered by the ratio of
    Raghubir Singh case (supra).

C         It is next contended that unamended Section 28 prescribes interest
    only at 6 per cent and the Court is entitled to award compound interest in
    view of the long delay in disposal of the matter. We find no force in this
    contention as well. When the statute prescribed interest @6% per annum,          r
    it necessarily means only simple interest and not compound interest and
    pendency of proceedings is no ground to award compound interest. When
D   the Act prescribes payment of interest at a·particular rate., it needs to be
    awarded at the rate prescribed and in no other way.

           The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

    G.N.                                                      Petition dismissed.