Union of India appealed against granting interest on enhanced land compensation for the period the reference was dismissed in default. The court held that dismissal due to non-appearance is impermissible under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and interest must be awarded.
Interest granted to respondents for the disputed period remains valid.
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.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
interest on the enhanced amount even for the period from the date of dismissal in default of the Reference case till the date of its restoration and the Government is aggrieved only by the grant of interest for that period.
LA.APP. 502/2008
Page 2 of 4
Me
It was submitted by Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant - Union of India that the learned Reference Court was not justified in granting interest to the respondents - claimants on the enhanced compensation for the period during which the reference had remained dismissed since that delay cannot be attributed to the Government. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants submitted that the learned Reference Court has awarded interest to them even for the afore-said period in dispute after noticing the judgment of the Hon'blé Supreme Court in "Khazan Siiigh vs. Union of India", AIR 2002 SC 726 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be dismissed on account of non-appearance of the claimants. It was also submitted that under similar circUmstances in one case reported as "Union of India vs. Shaukal Rai", 2009 (X) Apex Decisions (Delhi,) 139 I have already dismissed appeal of the Union of India and that judgment has not been challenged by the Union of India.
Learned counsel for the appellant - Union of India did not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that my decision in Shaukat Rai's case(supra) has not been challenged by the Government. In the said case I have taken the view that since the
•LA.APP. 502/2008
Page 3 of 4
Reference Court cannot dismiss a reference under the Land Acquisition Act due to non-appearance of the claimants in view of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khazan Singh's case, the claimants -- land owners cannot be deprived of the interest on the enhanced compensation if be awarded by the Reference Court even for the period from the date of dismissal of the reference in default till the date of its restoration. I have, therefore, no reason to take a
different view now.
5. � This appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to
r
costs.
/
AUGUST( ,2011 sh
a.
LA.APP. 502/2008
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court can dismiss a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act due to non-appearance of claimants in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Khazan Singh's case.
Whether claimants are deprived of interest on enhanced compensation for the period from the date of dismissal in default till the date of restoration of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khazan Singh vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶6
Khazan Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 726 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. Shaukat Rai, 2009 (X) Apex Decisions (Delhi,) 139Followed¶7
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
Claimants (Land Owners)
AMULYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
