THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, SELU, DISTRICT PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC.

84                       [2020]
              SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 84
                             REPORTS                       [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT,
          SELU, DISTRICT PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA
                                      v.
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. ETC.
B                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 246-255 of 2020)
                            JANUARY 15, 2020
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Land Acquisition – Statutory benefits and interest for the
     delayed period in approaching the High Court – Respondents/
C
     original claimants claimed parity in compensation with other land
     owners – There was a huge delay of five and a half years in
     preferring the appeals by the original claimants before the High
     Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference
     Court – The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation at
D    par with the other land owners/claimants and condoned the delay
     of five and a half years – Appellants contended that there was a
     huge delay and same was not required to be condoned by the High
     Court – Appellants further contended that the High Court ought
     not have awarded the statutory benefits and the interest for the
     delayed period – On appeal, held: Considering the fact that in other
E
     matters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the delay
     and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount of
     compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands
     were acquired for the same project vide the same notification –
     There was no fault with the order passed by the High Court in
F    condoning delay – Further, the order condoning the delay had
     attained finality as the same was not challenged – Insofar as the
     statutory benefits and the interest for the delayed period is
     concerned, while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, the
     Supreme Court in various cases has denied the interest on the
     enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in
G
     approaching the High Court – Merely because at the time of
     condoning delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants
     shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of
     compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who was

H
                                      84
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, v.                       85
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with liability to pay the    A
interest for the period of delay, which was not at all attributed to
them – Under the circumstances, the order of the High Court modified
to the extent denying the interest to the respondents/original
claimants on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period
of delay in preparing appeals.
                                                                       B
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that there was a huge delay of
five and a half years in preferring the appeals before the High
Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court. However, considering the fact that in other           C
matters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the
delay and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount of
compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands
were acquired for the same project vide the same notification.
Therefore, as such, no fault can be found with the order passed
by the High Court condoning the delay. It is required to be noted      D
that as such the order condoning the delay has attained finality as
the same was not challenged by the appellant at the relevant time.
[Para 4] [88-D-F]
       2. Whether for the delayed period the claimants shall be
entitled to the statutory benefits and the interest under the Land     E
Acquisition Act?
      2.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra. In the case of
Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, while condoning
the delay in preferring the appeal before this Court, while
enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other similarly       F
situated land owners, this Court has denied the interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in
approaching the High Court by way of LPAs. Similar view is
expressed by this Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v. Special
Deputy Collector (LA) and while condoning the delay in preferring      G
the appeal, this Court has denied the interest for the period of
delay. Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no
such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled
to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the

                                                                       H
86            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body
     cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the
     period of delay, which is not at all attributed to them. Under the
     circumstances, the common impugned judgment and order passed
     by the High Court awarding the interest on the enhanced amount
     of compensation for the period of delay in preferring the appeals
B
     deserve to be quashed and set aside and the impugned common
     judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be
     modified to the aforesaid extent. [Para 4.1] [88-G-H; 89-A-C]
           Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana (2014)
           14 SCC 127 ; K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy
C          Collector (LA) (2017) 12 SCC 840 : [2017] 6 SCR 524
           – relied on.
           Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari (1996) 1
           SCC 311 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 787 ; Collector (LA) v.
           Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 : [1987] 2 SCR 387 – referred
D          to.
                           Case Law Reference
     [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 787        referred to             Para 2
     [1987] 2 SCR 387               referred to             Para 2
E
     (2014) 14 SCC 127              relied on               Para 2
     [2017] 6 SCR 524               relied on               Para 2
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 246-
     255 of 2020
F          From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal
     Nos. 4083-4092 of 2016.
           Uday B. Dube, Advs. for the Appellant.

G          Sushil Karanjkar, Sachin Patil, Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Advs. for
     the Respondents.




H
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, v.                                  87
    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 A
       M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal Nos. 4083-
4092 of 2016 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the said first             B
appeals preferred by the original claimants and has enhanced the amount
of compensation for the lands acquired, the acquiring body – The
Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project has preferred the present
appeals.
       2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has               C
vehemently submitted that as such there was a delay of five and a half
years in preferring the first appeals. It is submitted that assuming that
the High Court is justified in enhancing the amount of compensation at
par with the other land owners/claimants, as there was a huge delay of
five and a half years, the High Court ought not to have saddled the               D
interest liability for the period of delay upon the appellants. It is submitted
that for the delayed period the claimants shall also not be entitled to any
statutory benefits.
       2.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate that as such there
was a huge delay of five and a half years and therefore as such the               E
same was not required to be condoned by the High Court. It is submitted
that in any case the High Court is not justified in granting the statutory
benefits and the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for
the period of delay. In support of his above submission, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decisions
of this Court in the cases of Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan                  F
Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311; Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC
107; Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14
SCC 127; and K. Subbarayudu v. Special Deputy Collector (LA),
(2017) 12 SCC 840.
       3. While opposing the present appeals, learned Advocate appearing          G
on behalf of the respondents/original claimants has vehemently submitted
that as such the original claimants claimed the parity in compensation
with other land owners. It is submitted that at the time when the High

                                                                                  H
88             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    Court condoned the delay, the same was not conditional, namely, to deny
     the statutory benefits and the interest for the interregnum period – delayed
     period. It is submitted that the order condoning the delay had attained
     finality and therefore subsequently it is not open for the appellant to
     submit that the High Court ought not to have awarded the statutory
     benefits and the interest for the delayed period.
B
            3.1 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on
     behalf of the respondents/original claimants that even otherwise as per
     the settled proposition of law, all claimants/land owners are entitled to
     the same compensation for the land acquired for the same project vide
     the same notification.
C
           3.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
     present appeals.
            4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
     at length.
D           At the outset, it is required to be noted that the dispute in the
     present appeals is only with respect to award of statutory benefits and
     interest for the delayed period. It is not in dispute that there was a huge
     delay of five and a half years in preferring the appeals before the High
     Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference
E    Court. However, considering the fact that in other matters the delay
     was condoned, the High Court condoned the delay and entertained the
     appeals and enhanced the amount of compensation at par with other
     land owners/claimants whose lands were acquired for the same project
     vide the same notification. Therefore, as such, no fault can be found
     with the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay. It is
F    required to be noted that as such the order condoning the delay has
     attained finality as the same was not challenged by the appellant at the
     relevant time. Be that as it may, the issue which is required to be
     considered is, whether for the delayed period the claimants shall be entitled
     to the statutory benefits and the interest under the Land Acquisition
G    Act?
            4.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra. In the case of Dhiraj
     Singh (supra), while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal before
     this Court, while enhancing the amount of compensation at par with
     other similarly situated land owners, this Court has denied the interest on
H
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, v.                                  89
    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in                    A
approaching the High Court by way of LPAs. Similar view is expressed
by this Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu (supra) and while
condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, this Court has denied the
interest for the period of delay. Merely because at the time of condoning
the delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be
                                                                                  B
entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the
period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body cannot be
saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, which
is not at all attributed to them. Under the circumstances, the common
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court awarding the
interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay           C
in preferring the appeals deserve to be quashed and set aside and the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
       4.2 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these appeals are allowed in part. The common impugned judgment and               D
order passed by the High Court is modified to the extent denying the
interest to the respondents/original claimants on the enhanced amount
of compensation for the period of delay in preferring the appeals. Rest
of the judgment and award passed by the High Court is confirmed. No
costs.
                                                                                  E

Ankit Gyan                                              Appeals partly allowed.




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H