THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, SELU, DISTRICT PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 15-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT,
SELU, DISTRICT PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 246-255 of 2020)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Statutory benefits and interest for the
delayed period in approaching the High Court – Respondents/
original claimants claimed parity in compensation with other land
owners – There was a huge delay of five and a half years in
preferring the appeals by the original claimants before the High
Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court – The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation at
par with the other land owners/claimants and condoned the delay
of five and a half years – Appellants contended that there was a
huge delay and same was not required to be condoned by the High
Court – Appellants further contended that the High Court ought
not have awarded the statutory benefits and the interest for the
delayed period – On appeal, held: Considering the fact that in other
matters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the delay
and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount of
compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands
were acquired for the same project vide the same notification –
There was no fault with the order passed by the High Court in
condoning delay – Further, the order condoning the delay had
attained finality as the same was not challenged – Insofar as the
statutory benefits and the interest for the delayed period is
concerned, while condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, the
Supreme Court in various cases has denied the interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in
approaching the High Court – Merely because at the time of
condoning delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants
shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who was
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 84
84
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
85
otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with liability to pay the
interest for the period of delay, which was not at all attributed to
them – Under the circumstances, the order of the High Court modified
to the extent denying the interest to the respondents/original
claimants on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period
of delay in preparing appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  It is not in dispute that there was a huge delay of
five and a half years in preferring the appeals before the High
Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court.  However, considering the fact that in other
matters the delay was condoned, the High Court condoned the
delay and entertained the appeals and enhanced the amount of
compensation at par with other land owners/claimants whose lands
were acquired for the same project vide the same notification.
Therefore, as such, no fault can be found with the order passed
by the High Court condoning the delay.  It is required to be noted
that as such the order condoning the delay has attained finality as
the same was not challenged by the appellant at the relevant time.
[Para 4] [88-D-F]
2. Whether for the delayed period the claimants shall be
entitled to the statutory benefits and the interest under the Land
Acquisition Act?
2.1 The aforesaid issue is not res integra.  In the case of
Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Haryana, while condoning
the delay in preferring the appeal before this Court, while
enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other similarly
situated land owners, this Court has denied the interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay in
approaching the High Court by way of LPAs.  Similar view is
expressed by this Court in the case of  K. Subbarayudu v. Special
Deputy Collector (LA) and while condoning the delay in preferring
the appeal, this Court has denied the interest for the period of
delay.  Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no
such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled
to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NIMNA DUDHNA PROJECT, v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body
cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the
period of delay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.