RAKESH KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. versus STATEOF U.P. THR. COLLECTOR AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 05-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
' J 
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. 
v. 
STATEOFU.P. THR. COLLECTOR AND ANR. 
JANUARY 5, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Interest: Acquisition of land-Authorities taking forcible possession 
of claimants' land-Without resorting to procedure under Land Acquisition 
Act-Suit for injunction by land owners-Authorities giving an undertaking 
A 
B 
in civil court to pay compensation within stipulated period-Amount 
C 
deposited in court after about I~ years of the stipulated date-Claim by 
land owner for interest-Held, claimants were wrongly deprived of beneficial 
use of their money-They are entitled to I 8% simple interest from the date 
of possession of land till the date of actual payment. 
Respondent no. 2, Agra Development Authority, on 31.8.2000, took 
forcible possession of the land of the appellants, who in turn filed a suit for 
injunction. Undisputedly provisions of Land Acquisition Act were not 
resorted to. In the civil court respondent no. 2 gave an undertaking that it 
would pay compensation to the land-owners within the stipulated period. 
However, respondent no. 2, one year and five months thereafter, offered to 
the land-owners the cheque, which the latter refused to accept as the same 
D 
E 
was not tendered according to the undertaking. Thereafter the money was 
deposited in the civil court. In land owners' writ petition, the High Court 
permitted them to withdraw the entire amount but rejected their claim for 
interest on delayed payment of compensation. Aggrieved, the land owners 
F 
filed the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The appellants have wrongly been deprived of the beneficial 
use of their money. Therefore, they are entitled to interest at the rate of 
18% p.a. from 31.8.2000, i.e. the date the possession of the land was taken, 
till the date of actual payment. In the meanwhile, the appellants are at 
liberty to withdraw the amount which is in deposit with the civil court 
without furnishing any security. (Para 4] (212-B-CJ 
209 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] I S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 64 of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 20.10.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15903/2002. 
Rajiv Dutta, M.P. Shorawala, Shashi Kiran, Jyoti Saxena and Vipin K. 
Saxena for the Appellants. 
· Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, T.N. Singh, Kamlendra Mishra and 
Rajeev Kumar Dubey for the Respondents. · 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Leave granted. 
2. Heard Mr.Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of 
the appella:its and Mr.Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned counsel 
appearing on behalf of the respondentNo.2 (Agra Development Authority). 
3. This appeal is . directed against the final judgment and order 
dt.20.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil 
Misc. Writ Petition No. l 5903/2002 whereby the High Court has dismissed the 
E 
Writ Petition filed by the present appellants/land owners. The appellants 
were the owners of land ofKhasra No.11 lA and l 12B measuring 7-6 Bighas 
situated at Mauza Lakhanpur Tehsil and District Agra. The respondent No.2 
without following the procedure for acquiring the land under the Land 
Acquisition Act took forcible possession of land in question on 31.08.2000. 
F 
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had not resorted to the provisions 
of Land Acquisition Act. 
Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of 
respondent No.2, the appellants filed an Original Civil Suit No.358 of 2000 
before the learned Civil ·Judge (Junior Division), Agra for injunction to 
restrain the respondent No.2 from encroaching and trespassing or taking, in 
G 
H 
any manner, the possession of the land, by raising any construction of 
laying road on the land ofthe appellants. The trial court issued notice to 
. the resp(mdent Nos. l and 2 .. · After the service of notice, the. Civil Court 
passed an order .of injunction .for maintaining .the status quo. with respect 
to the land in question and the said order was extended from time to time. 
Since an interim order was passed, the respondent No.~ gave an undertaking 
to pay compensation to the appellants for their land of Khasra Plot No.111 
'-
I 
/..., 
-!· .. : 
.. 
-
-
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF U.P. THR. COLLECTOR [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
21 l 
. at Mauza Lakhanpur Tehsil and Distril:t Agra and that the said comp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.