Land Acquisition Officer vs Somanath Gouda

P.K. Misra, J.—The Land Acquisition Officer. Koraput. has filed this appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order dated 26.3.1991 passed by the subordinate Judge, Gunupur, in M.J.C. No. 27 of 1989 (23/85).

Land of the respondent was acquired for "Construction of Rehabilitation Colony for housing of flood affected people of Gunupur" by virtue of Notification dated 10.12.1980. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation on 15.9.1981. On the basis of application of the respondent, the matter was referred to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the subordinate Judge, Gunupur, has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 40.000/- per acre. In fact, against such award of the subordinate Judge, Gunupur, dated 27.9.1988, no appeal had been filed by the State. Subsequently, the claimant filed an application for correction of the judgment relating to payment of interest and by order dated 26.3.1 991, the subordinate Judge directed that interest should be paid at the rate fixed under the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of ''1984. The present appeal has been purportedly filed against the order dated 26.3.1 99 1 .

Since the award of the subordinate Judge is based on the earlier decision of this Court, the same has not been rightly challenged. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that since the subordinate Judge had earlier granted interest at the rate of 7 per cent, he should not have subsequently altered the judgment and directed for payment of interest at the rate of 9 per cent and 1 5 per cent as contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1.984.

In the decision reported in Ramchandra Pati and Another Vs. Collector, , it has been held .by this Court that an application under Sections 151 and 152, read with Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, can be filed for direction relating to payment of interest as per provision of Act 68 of 1984. As a matter of fact, the subordinate Judge had granted interest at the rate of seven per cent which was not contemplated either under the old Act or under the amended Act. Obviously, such a direction was based on mistaken impression. Interest payable is contemplated under the Act and as such there is no discretion left to the Court to grant interest at a different rate. Therefore, the subordinate Judge. Gunupur, has rightly corrected the earlier direction and directed for payment of interest at the rate provided for in the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.