AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subrata Talukdar, J
Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the land of the petitioner was acquired under the Special Act being the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (Act 33 of 1978 and, for short the 1978 Act).
Relying on Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the 1978 Act was placed in the 4th Schedule and kept out side the purview of any acquisition process to be initiated under the 2013 Act following Section 105 thereof.
It is next submitted that by a Notification dated August, 28, 2015 by the Government of India, it was, inter alia, ordered that all benefits will be extended to land owners under the 2013 Act in respect of all enactments which were originally specified in the 4th Schedule. This would, Mr. Mukherjee submits, would apply without any reservation to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner under the 1978 Act, since the 1978 Act, along with similar enactments was subsequently brought out of the 4th Schedule.
Learned Senior Counsel points out that all other modes of compensation, including solatium (in terms of Section 30 of the 2013 Act), have been paid to the petitioner without demur regarding quantum from the Metro Railways.
Next, drawing, the attention of this Court to the order dated 24th April, 2019 and the further order of the Appellate Authority under the 1978 Act dated 8th May, 2019, Mr. Mukherjee submits that it has been most illegally decided in violation of Section 80 of the 1978 Act that the quantum of interest shall be allowed only up to a determinable period in favour of the petitioner.
Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2007(II) SCC 341, it is pointed out that the payment of interest as statutorily provided is automatic and there is hardly any scope to exercise judicial discretion. The judgement in 2007(2) SCC 341(supra) in turn relies on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1996(2) SCC 71.
Also relying on the decision reported in 2018(3) SCC 28, the stand is taken by learned Senior Counsel that the claim to interest by the petitioner lies only by way of filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Bag, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Railways, points out that interest as decided by the Appellate Authority has been already calculated and finalised in favour of the petitioner. There is only a small difference with regard to quantum which is being resisted by the petitioner without cause.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the stand taken by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that once the 1978 Act is brought out of the purview of Section 105 of the 2013 Act, which is an admitted position and once by the Notification dated 28th August, 2015) the benefits under the 2013 Act were extended without reservation in favour of the awardees, the Metro Railway is precluded from acting in violation of Section 80 of the 2013 Act.
The scope for the Respondents/Railways to exercise judicial discretion to hair-split the periodicity and rate of interest as prescribed under Section 80 is negative.
Having observed as above, this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw the offered amount, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in this writ petition.
Learned Railways Counsel shall be entitled to revert to this Court with further appropriate instructions on the next date.
Let the matter now return under the same heading "Motions(Group-I)" in the Combined Monthly List of November, 2019.