Tag: #acquisition

-Report by Moksh Kapoor

Interest was granted to the petitioners in the case of ROSHANBI AZIZ MOTIWALA THROUGH POA MR. ILIYAS AZIZ MOTIWALA AND ORS. Vs THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS. Decided on 06-04-2023.

FACTS:

The properties of the petitioners in the present case were acquired by the Competent Authorities. It was contended by the petitioners that the authorities passed an order under section 3(G) of the national highways act dated 15th July 2017 that the compensation awarded to the petitioners according to their building structure will be for an amount of Rs. 1,08,92,995/-. The petitioners contended that the compensation amount which was paid had not been added with the interest on the amount determined by the Competent Authority under the Award from the date of declaration of the Award till the date of payment of the amount of compensation. A similar claim was rejected by the Competent Authority and the petitioners moved to the high court for redressal under Article 226 of the Indian constitution.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

Petitioners claimed they are entitled to interest on the sum given under the Award from the date of the Award until the date of payment. They also claimed that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order dated August 28, 2015, which went into effect on September 1, 2015, provided that the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the said Act of 2013”) relating to the determination of compensation. They further contended that it was the duty of the competent authority to disperse the compensation amount after passing the reward and the competent authority has failed to do the same. Petitioners also stated the case of Tarsem Singh, in which the apex court held that Sections 23(1-A) and (2) of the Land Acquisitions Act relating to Solatium and interest, as well as Section 28 in which interest is payable this provision will also apply to any acquisition made under the 1956 Act.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondent contended the notice to collect the reward to both the petitioner was issued and the petitioner by their will claimed the award in February/March 2015 and the amount was given to them during that time only. The competent authority also contended that after the award was issued the valuation of the property can’t be done therefore the award concerning structure was not passed. They stated that the supplementary compensation amount was deposited in the petitioner’s account as per the letter issued by NHAI dated 27, September 2017 and the notice for the same was issued on 28th September 2017. They claimed the petitioner is provided with the full compensation of their land therefore they are not liable to pay any interest.

JUDGEMENT:

The Bombay High Court in this case held that the claims made by the competent authority of issuing notices to both the petitioners are not maintainable in the court as there is no proof for the same. There was no material produced in the court to back up the claim. The court also held that the question here is not of providing the actual compensation, but rather providing the interest for the delay of providing the compensation by the competent authority. If there is a delay in the actual payment of compensation amount from the date of respective Awards in Petition, the Petitioners would, in our opinion, be entitled to interest from the date of respective Awards. Award valid till the date of payment. In light of the facts and circumstances of both Writ Petition and for the reasons stated above, it would be necessary to direct the Respondents to pay the Petitioners interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award until the date of actual payment.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3nUWs6T

-Report by Pragati Prajeeta

In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs Manpreet Singh with Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary Land & Building Department vs Manpreet Singh, a common question of law and facts arose in appeals out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and hence both the appeals are being decided and disposed of together in a common judgment and order by the Supreme Court of India. And the main question, in this case, was Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?

FACTS

The subsequent purchaser is the original writ petitioner, who in the year 2018 acquired the rights and interest in the land. But the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner when under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894 the award was issued concerning the land in question. And from all the records, it appeared before the High Court, that the claimed right by the original writ petitioner was based on the 2015 Assignment. Under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 notifications in this present case were issued and the award was declared.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The appellants vehemently submitted that as such the respondent is the subsequent purchaser and is the original writ petitioner, who after the Act,2013 came into force purchased the property hence therefore as observed by this Court in the case, they held that he had no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 as he is a subsequent purchaser. Then it was submitted that the High Court declared material that the acquisition is deemed to lapse in the writ petition filed about because of the reason that the respondent is a subsequent purchaser, and had no locus to challenge it as observed and held by the Court.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned senior counsel, however, has submitted that the decision of this Court needs some re-consideration under the Act, 2013 for certain relevant aspects which have not been previously dealt with and/or have been considered. But at the same time, he is not disputing or contradicting the fact that the subsequent purchaser is the original writ petitioner, who in the year 2018 acquired the right, title and interest in the disputed property or even after Act, 2013 came into force.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court after looking into the facts and reasons stated the appeal is successful. And in the view of the latter case, the High Court committed some serious error while for instance entertaining the writ petition of the response that is the original writ petitioner. Then it was also seen that the court has materially erred while declaring concerning the land in question, acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 has lapsed in a writ petition filed by, the original writ petitioner, the respondent who is a subsequent purchaser.

The Supreme Court then held that the judgment and order passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The original Writ Petition filed before the High Court stands dismissed. At the same time all the pending applications, stand disposed of and the present appeals are allowed accordingly. But at the same time looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it held that there shall be no order as to costs.