D.D.A versus MAHENDER SINGH & ANR

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 20-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S. C. R 788 
A 
0.0.A. 
v 
MAHENOER SINGH & ANR 
Civil Appeal No. 1751 of 2009 
B 
MARCH 20, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 28 and 34- Writ petition - Direction 
c to pay statutory interest uls. 34 of 1894 Act for acquisition of 
land in terms of award by High Court - Justification of - Held: 
There is no scope for direction to pay interest while exercising 
;urisdiction under Article 226, in a manner not contemplated 
either u/s. 28 ors. 34 - Thus, order of High Court set aside. 
0 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals was whether the High Court in exercise of its 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 
was justified in directing the appellant-ODA and others to 
E pay statutory interest u/s. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 to the claimants for the acquisition of land in terms 
of the award. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: The Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code 
and lays down detailed procedure for acquisition of land, 
payment of compensation including solatium and 
additional market value. Under section 34 interest @ 9% 
from the date of taking over the possession till payment 
for the first year @ 15% for subsequent years is payable. 
G Section 28 empowers the Court to award interest on the 
.. 
excess amount awarded over and above the amount 
awarded by the Collector. Apart from sections 28 and 34 
which deal with payment of interest to persons entitled to 
H 
788 
( 
, 
..) 
.. 
0.0.A. V. MAHENDER SINGH & ANR. 
789 
receive compensation, there is no other provision A 
envisaging payment of interest. Collector, Land 
Acquisition is liable to pay interest on statutory rates to 
such persons only when possession has been taken over 
before the payment of the entire compensation to them 
under section 34. While exercising jurisdiction under 8 
Article 226 of the Constitution there is no scope for 
direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by 
either section 28 or 34 of the Act. The impugned judgment 
of High Court are set aside. [Paras 5, 7, 9 and 10] [ 790-G-
H; 794-A-B; 793-C-D] 
c 
Net Ram and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. 86 (2000) 
DLT 606; Union of India v. Budh Singh 1995 (6) SCC 233; 
State of Himachal Padesh v. Dharam Das 1995 (5) SCC 683; 
Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. 1996 (5) SCC 44; 
Ashok Nagar Plot Holders Association v. State of UP 1997 0 
( 10) sec 77 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
86 (2000) DLT 606 
Referred to 
Para 3 
1995 (6) sec 233 
Referred to 
Para 7 
E 
1996 (5) sec 44 
Referred to 
Para 8 
1997 (10) sec 11 
Referred to 
Para 8 
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1751 
of 2009 
F 
From the Judgement and Order dated 25.05.2006 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) Nos. 22881 
of 2005. 
WITH 
G 
Civil Appeal No. 1752 of 2009 
Civil Appeal No. 1753 of 2009 
A. Sharma, ASG, Vishnu B. Saharaya (for Saharya & Co.), 
for the Appellants. 
H 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Satpal Singh, N.S. Vashisht, Vishal, Kanchan Kaur Dhobi, 
B 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the Writ 
Petitions filed by respondents· under Article 226 of the 
c Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). Prayer in 
the writ petitions was to direct the present appellant to make 
payment of statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') for the acquisition of 
the land in terms of the award No.3/1997-98 dated 10.12.1997. 
D The appellant resisted the claim on the ground that such a prayer 
cannot be accepted in the writ petitions. The High Court, 
however, held that the writ applications were to be allowed. 
Accordingly, it directed the respondents in the writ petitions 
including the present appellant to pay the interest payable to 
E the claimants in terms of Section 34 of the Act and pay costs of 
Rs.10,000/-. 
3. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the 
appellant submitted that the direction given by the High Court is 
clearly contrary to a Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court 
F 
in Net Ram and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. (86 (2000) DLT 
606). 
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand 
support
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.