Ignasius Kujur vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for payment of the amount of interest as awarded by the learned Sub-

Judge-II, Gumla by order dated 30.08.2011 in Land Acquisition Case No. 02/2006.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, land is amount to

be vested in the Government and in view of the matter from the date of vesting of the land, petitioner is entitled for the interest in terms of judgment.

He further submits that possession has not taken when that new Act came into play, the prayer of the petitioner may be allowed. He relied on

judgment in the case of “Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust & Another†reported in (2017) 6 SCC 751 in which the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“25. As we have already noted above, the whole face of land acquisition has changed by the 2013 Act. Section 105 of the Act 2013 Act

has provided that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. So far, only 13 Acts have

been notified under the Fourth Schedule. Neither the Delhi Development Act, 1957 nor the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972

is included in the Fourth Schedule.â€​

Per contra, Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that pursuant to order of the Sub-Judge, petitioner filed

Execution Case No. 01 of 2011 before the said court and by order dated 31.01.2013 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and the said

execution case was also rejected vide order dated 27.06.2014 and that order is not under challenge in this case. He further submits that amount in

question has already been paid to the petitioner and the petitioner has accepted the same. He further submits that accordingly amount of Rs. 5,16,171/-

+12 % interest Rs, 61,941/-+30% solatium amount of Rs. 1,54,851/- total Rs. 7,32,963/- and 6% interest thereon Rs, 43,977/-1 G.T. Rs. 7,76940/- has

already been paid to the petitioner through the respective Court vide S.B.I. cheque no. 124007 dated 16.03.2013, as is evident from Annexure-3 of the

instant writ petition and this office letter no. 31/L.A. dated 18.03.2013. He further submits that compensation amount and interest @ 6% solatium

interest therein has already been paid. He further submits that this aspect has been considered by the Executing Court who has recorded the same

and the execution case has been dismissed.

As the Court has looked into the claim of the petitioner, it transpires that the Executing Court accepted this aspect of the matter that the total amount

of Rs. 7 lakh and odd has already been paid that is why the Executing Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The break-up provided in the

counter-affidavit also suggests that the amount in question has already been paid to the petitioner and the same has already been taken by the

petitioner vide S.B.I cheque. In view of the matter that petitioner has already accepted the awarded amount, judgment relied on by the petitioner is not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ

petition is dismissed.