- (1.) THIS writ petition was filed by petitioners in the year 2003 seeking payment of compensation payable to them pursuant to award of Land Acquisition Officer dated 23.09.1996.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for petitioners is that though pursuant to notice dated 23.09.1996 of Land Acquisition Officer to collect the amount of compensation, petitioners approached the authority, but only an amount of Rs.3,52,465/- was offered to Vijay Kumar, Rs.2,91,696/- was offered to Ravindra Kumar, Rs.2,97,596/- was offered to Kantoola, Rs.2,97,590/- was offered to Arjun, and Rs.1,45,847 was offered to Sarail; the aforesaid amount was not sufficient. Besides that, the Land Acquisition Officer arbitrarily modified rate of compensation as mentioned in Para 9. It is argued that even if petitioners are not held entitled to interest for the period from 23.09.1996 till 16.05.2003 when they filed present writ petition, the respondent State cannot unduly withheld the amount of compensation for a long period of eight years now. It was required to make payment of compensation to petitioners within a reasonable period after filing present writ petition. It is argued that land of petitioners was acquired and when they approached the Land Acquisition Officer for receiving amount of compensation, they were offered lessor amount of compensation against receipt of higher amount. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent State, and Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for respondent RIICO, have opposed the writ petition and argued that if at all petitioners were not satisfied with quantum of compensation, they could make an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference to be made to the civil court for its enhancement but that could not be a reason to refuse to accept the amount of compensation. It is also argued that petitioners have not made a clear and categorical plea as to who offered lessor amount and what was the amount which was offered to them and the averments of petition are absolutely vague. Petitioners have not persued the matter diligently for receiving payment, before the Land Acquisition Officer which is evident from fact that writ petition itself was filed in the year 2003. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for RIICO, has argued that the respondent RIICO in any case cannot be saddled with liability of interest because it had deposited entire amount of compensation with Land Acquisition Officer on 16.03.1996 itself. Having regard to arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that although it may be true that if petitioners wanted enhancement of amount of compensation, remedy for them was to make an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the civil court. However, at the same time, it is also equally true that petitioners have filed this writ petition in the year 2003, which is pending adjudication before the court for last eight years. The money has not been paid to the petitioners so far. Petitioners cannot be denied payment of the compensation.
(3.) WRIT petition is therefore disposed of with direction to respondents to pay to petitioners the entire amount of compensation. Petitioners although shall not be entitled to any interest for the period from the date of award till filing of writ petition i.e. 16.05.2003, however, beyond that period petitioners shall be paid interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Compliance of this order be made by respondents within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them. It is made clear that in case petitioners have already received the amount of compensation or part thereof, they shall not entitled to the same amount.;