Allowed

Rewar and Anr. v. National Highway Authority and Anr.

Rajasthan HC28 Aug 2018CW/15310/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants interest on land acquisition compensation withheld by the State. The Court held that an independent writ petition lies to claim interest on an arbitral award awarded under the Arbitration Act, as the delay was caused by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the petitioners were granted interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of the award.

Rewar and Anr. Vs National Highway Authority and Anr. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15310/2017

¶3

Rewar Son Of Shri Ranglal, aged about 62 years, Resident Of Village Paladi, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶4

Bharosi Son Of Shri Mediya, Resident Of Village Paladi, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, 87, Ganga Vihar Colony, Hotel Rawat Palace, Dausa, Rajasthan

¶8

Competent Authority And Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikrai, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

28/08/2018

¶14

1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition prays for releasing the amount as determined by the Arbitrator alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Facts which need to be noted are that vide order dated 07.12.2009, the Arbitrator determined the amount as compensation on account of acquisition of land of the petitioners for broadening National Highway No.1. The amount was determined as Rs.1,48,502/- as compensation. The District Collector was appointed as Arbitrator to hear the claims and the

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-15310/2017]

¶17

Arbitrator passed an Award on 03.03.2008 allowing the claim of the petitioner holding the land to be a commercial nature. The Highway Authorities challenged the same by filing objections under Section 34 before the District Judge, who rejected the objections and final award was passed in pursuance thereof on 07.12.2009. An appeal was preferred against the said order of District Judge before the High Court which came to be dismissed on 14.02.2017.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that during pendency of the appeal before the High Court, 50% amount was released while 50% amount was withheld by the respondents and the petitioners, therefore, preferred this writ petition for claiming the said amount.

¶19

3. During pendency of the writ petition, the remaining amount has also been released on 27.10.2017. The total amount of Rs.43,14,322/- has been paid after deducting TDS. Learned counsel submits that interest on the said amount is payable to the petitioners as there has been a delay in releasing the amount while the land was already acquired and used by the respondents in 2012. Counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners are entitled for interest w.e.f. the date of award i.e. 07.12.2009 till the date of payment i.e. 27.10.2017.

¶20

4. It is to be noted that the total amount of Rs.43,14,322/- was paid in two installments, firstly on 01.10.2012 and remaining amount of Rs.19,41,445/- on 27.10.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer relating to interest on the ground that so far as the National Highway Authority of India is concerned, they have deposited the entire amount with the competent authority alongwith the amount

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CW-15310/2017]

¶23

for the other properties which had also been taken in acquisition. It is further submitted that so far as the question of interest is concerned, the same should have been demanded at the stage when the Civil Misc. Appeal was decided by the High Court earlier on 14.02.2017.

¶24

6. Having heard both the counsel, I find that the appeal preferred against the award was at the instance of the respondents. The payment of the awarded amount, was also withheld at their own instance. It is on account of interim directions issued by this Court that half of the amount was released, the remaining amount was only released after the disposal of the appeal. So far as the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are concerned, it is settled provisions of law that any award which is based under the Arbitration Act would also carry interest and for the purpose of interest, the separate proceedings can be initiated. Merely because the amount was deposited in the current account would not deprive the petitioner from the interest on the said amount.

¶25

7. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that no interest should be paid to the petitioners and if at all the petitioners should again take up the matter before the Arbitrator for claim of the interest. The Apex Court in the case of S.K. Dua Versus State of Haryana And Another, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 44 ,

¶26

has held that the writ petition would lie for claim of interest independently. In view thereof, I do not accept the argument of learned counsel in order to give a finality to the proceedings, the interest is allowed in the present writ petition itself.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The interest @ 9% be paid to the petitioner for the amount of award. The interest

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CW-15310/2017]

¶30

shall be released in the two installments according to the dates on which the award installments were paid. It is made clear that interest amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months, failing which the petitioners shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings.

¶31

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶32

R.Vaishnav

¶33

31.

Rewar and Anr. v. National Highway Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rewar and Anr. v. National Highway Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu W/O Amit Yadav D/O Ramnivas Vs State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel

Krishna Agrwal Vs R S I D an Invest Corporation and Anr.

Charumati Rana Andanr Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mohan Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Urban Improvement Trust Alwar Vs the Official Liquidator

Sandeep Singh Vs Regional Passport Officer