RATTI RAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 17-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 989 
RATTI RAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 11177 of2011) 
FEBRUARY 17,2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisilion Ac/, 1894 - s.28 - lnlerest on enhanced 
compensa/ion - Statutory benefils u/s. 28 - Gran/ of - Land 
acquisilion proceedings - Award passed by lhe Collector - Denial 
of statu/ory benefits available under the Act lo the appel/anl-land 
owner, in respect of the value of land fixed - Ground for denial was 
that the proceeding initialed al /he inslance of the appellanl remained 
stayed before the Reference Court - Held: These are not relevant 
considera/ions or factors for the purpose of grant of stalutory 
benefits - There is no exclusion of any period contemplated on 
whatever account uls. 28 - Only reference is to the date of 
dispossession - Liability to pay interesl starts to run from /hat date 
-
Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to interest for the 
compensation, as per s.28 r!w. s.23(1AJ in respecl of 1he land 
acquired from him, on value at the rate of Rs. 76,5501- per Bigha 
for the period of slay also. 
Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma and 
01her (2004) 6 SCC 533 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
c2004) 6 sec 533 
referred to 
Para 1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11177 
of201 l. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 11178 of201 l 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2011 in RFA No. 174 
of2002 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Ms. Shobha, Inder Singh .. \kanksha Kaushik, Shrey Dambhare, 
Advs. for the Appellants. 
989 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
990. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya (For Mis Saharya & Co.) 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. In land acquisition proceedings pertaining to 
Award No. 79 of 1982-1983 in respect of the land belonging to the 
B appellants, this Court finally fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 76, 
5501- per Bigha, in the Judgment dated 03.08.2004 in Delhi Development 
Authority v. Bali Ra;n Sharma and Other'. 
2. Once the land value is fixed by the Court, it refers to the value 
of the land as per the Award passed by the Collector. That should carry 
C all eligible statutory benefits. It appears that in the case before us,. 
statutory benefits have been denied for a short period on the ground that 
the proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, remained stayed 
before the Reference Court. To quote from Paragraph-4 of the impugned 
judgment: 
D 
E 
"Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, had submitted 
that the learned trial court was not justified in declining the 
relief of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period 
during which the reference proceedings had remained stayed 
sine die and that relief at least should be given by this Court. 
However, this prayer of the appellant cannot be accepted since 
he himself had got his reference proceedings before the trial 
Court stayed sine die and the Government cannot be burdened 
with the liability of interest for the delay in disposal of the 
reference proceedings caused by the appellant himself" 
. F 
3. We fail to understand how the appellants could be denied the 
statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(hereinafter referred.to as "the Act") in respect of the value of this land 
fixed, merely because there was a period of stay operating, may be in a 
proceeding at the instance of the appellants. Those are not relevant 
considerations or factors at all for the purpose of grant of statutory 
G benefits available to a person, whose land has been acquired in terms of 
Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 reads as under: 
"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess· 
compensation. If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, 
the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in 
H 
1 t2004) 6 sec 533 
RATTI RAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
excess of the suri1 which the Collector did award as 
compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the 
Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine 
per centum per annum from the date on which he took 
possessio.n of the land to the date of payment of such excess 
into Court: 
Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that 
where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after 
991 
A 
B 
the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on 
which possessi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.