- (1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. The dispute in the present revision relates to the rate of payment of interest. The dispute has arisen in consequence of the award of the Reference Court dated 24-4-1999 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The applicant filed objection under Section 47 of CPC alleging that it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of judgment of the Reference Court. The objections have been rejected by the Courts below.
(2.) BEFORE this Court Shri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the liability of payment of interest is at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment in the Reference Court and for the subsequent period, the liability is at the rate of 15% per annum. The Executing Court has taken a different view. The matter relates to the interpretation of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plain reading of Section 28 suggests that interest at the rate of 9% per annum is payable from the date on which possession of the land is taken. Proviso to Section 28 is to the effect that the Court may direct that interest at the rate of 15% shall be payable after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which possession is taken. The word 'may' used has been interpreted to mean 'shall' by the Apex Court in the case of Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi, AIR 1997 SC 1779. The effect of the decision of the Apex Court is that the Court has no option but to direct payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum after the date of expiry of one year period from the date on which possession is taken. Shri Mittal further relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. Raj Narain Singh and another, 1987 LACC 559, and upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yadavrao P. Pathade (dead) by LRs. etc. v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (27) ALR 446 (SC ). On the other hand, Shri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and another v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and others, (1996) 2 SCC 71.
(3.) SHRI Mittal while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 1987 LACC 559, contends that requirement to deposit excess amount within a period of one year of taking over possession is a task impossible to perform as the excess amount itself has not been determined within a period of one year of taking over of the possession. In view of the fact that controversy has now been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and another (supra) there can be no doubt that the payment has to be made at the rate of 15% after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken.;