High Court list of five writ petitions seeking 9% p.a. interest on land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act. Court held the issue involves disputed facts and maintainability, listing them for final hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
920.WP1227_2024.DOC
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1227 OF 2024
Ishak Kashimsab Amlichunge & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector & Ors. …Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7297 OF 2024
Kalyanappa Madhivalappa Chanshetty … Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector & Ors. …Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2024
Sharnappa Sidram Keshetty … Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector & Ors. …Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1303 OF 2024
Ghaleppa Sidramappa Keshetty … Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector & Ors. …Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 27494 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 27499 OF 2024 (Not on board, taken on board)
Venkatesh alias Rajabhau Vasudeo Somshetti … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents
920.WP1227_2024.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 24894 OF 2024 (Not on board, taken on board)
Shriniwas Ramayya Boddul … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Dr. Ramdas Sabban a/w. Mr. Pravin Sabban, Mr. Shrikant Kompelli and Arundhati Sabban for the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Shinde, ‘B’ Panel, Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State.
_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. Date : 11 October, 2024
PC:
Patel, learned AGP for the State. Respondent no. 3 is the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, who would be required to be heard.
For convenience, we note the prayers in lead petition, being Writ Petition No. 1227 of 2024, which reads thus:
“a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to pay 9% p.a. interest on the said Sec. 3(G) compensation amount of Rs.1,82,10,349/- from the date of Sec. 3(G) compensation order/award
Page 2 of 6 11 October, 2024
920.WP1227_2024.DOC
dated 02.12.2018 till the date of actual payment dt. 19.06.2019;
b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to deposit in this Hon’ble High Court the said 9% p.a. interest on the said Sec. 3G compensation amount of Rs.1,82,10,349/- from the date of Sec. 3(G) Compensation Order/Award dt. 02.12.2018 till the date of actual payment dt. 19.06.2019.”
are for a money claim. Admittedly, the petitioner has received the land acquisition compensation under the provisions of Section 3G of the National Highway Act, 1956 on 19 June, 2019 paid under an award which was declared on 2 December, 2018. The present Writ Petition is filed after almost four years on 15 December, 2023. It is not in dispute that due process of law was followed and the land was acquired by an award being declared under the provisions of the said Act and compensation amount is also being paid. The claim of the petitioner is purely a monetary claim, as it is petitioner’s contention that interest @9% remained to be paid to the petitioner from the date of the award till the actual payment of compensation which was paid on 19 June, 2019.
920.WP1227_2024.DOC
interest. He is not in a position to point out that the National Highway Act, 1956 makes any provision in regard to payment of interest and even if such a provision is assumed to be provided in the said Act, he would not deny that the right to receive interest had accrued to the petitioner on 14 June, 2019 when the petitioner received the compensation. It is also not known as to what was the factual reason for the delay in accepting compensation. Whether the delay was attributable to the petitioners or the respondents, which would be determinative of the entitlement to such interest to be paid on the compensation amount received by the petitioner. This would be certainly subjective which would involve an enquiry on evidence on the facts of each case. Whether such determination can at all be undertaken in the proceedings of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would also be an issue. In our prima facie opinion, in the present circumstances as pointed out by Mr. Patel, the delayed acceptance of the award of compensation by the petitioners would be a pure issue of fact and/or in the realm of a disputed question of fact
Constitution would be an appropriate remedy to award such a
920.WP1227_2024.DOC
monetary claim as raised by the petitioner on interest in respect of a cause of action, for which a simplicitor money suit would also not be maintainable when the same was time barred. This more particularly considering that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive compensation under the 1956 Act which specifically does not incorporate any provision for interest, had attained “accord and satisfaction”, when the petitioner received the compensation on 19 June, 2019?
(ii) Whether is it a principle of law that only for the reason that interest amount is claimed under the National Highways Act on compensation awarded for acquisition of land, the basic principles of law in regard to maintainability of the money claim on the legal parameters the same would be tested in a civil suit, can be overlooked by a Writ Court so as to entertain a Writ Petition simplicitor for a money claim, which is time barred can nonetheless be granted exercising writ jurisdiction?
(iii) Whether such money claim as in the present case will be required to be treated differently, when tested by applying the provisions of the Limitation Act as if the law of limitation
Page 5 of 6 11 October, 2024
920.WP1227_2024.DOC
would not apply when a claim is made in a Writ Petition?
find that there is express determination on these points and/or such points had fell for consideration of this Court. The petitioners would be required to be heard finally. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
on record.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)
Page 6 of 6 11 October, 2024
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/10/2024 11:56:57
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is an appropriate remedy to award a monetary claim for interest when a money suit would be time barred.
Whether a Writ Court can overlook basic principles regarding the maintainability of a time-barred money claim for interest under the National Highways Act.
Whether provisions of the Limitation Act apply to monetary claims made in a Writ Petition differently.
Ishak Kashimsab Amlichunge & Anr.
Kalyanappa Madhivalappa Chanshetty
Sharnappa Sidram Keshetty
Ghaleppa Sidramappa Keshetty
Venkatesh alias Rajabhau Vasudeo Somshetti
Shriniwas Ramayya Boddul
G. S. KULKARNI
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
