RAMESH CHANDRA SEAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR, KARARUP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an award of the District Judge. Lower Assam Districts, made on 31st August 1970 under the Defence of India Act, 1962, hereinafter called 'the Act'.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are as follows: The Government of Assam, by a notification dated 17th March 1964, acquired some land of the petitioner measuring 52 Bighas 1 Katha 7 Lechas, covered by different Dags and Pattas of Rangiya town, Mouza -Panduri of District Kamrup. The land had earlier been requisitioned under Section 29 of the Act. The Collector granted compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 3000/ - per bigha. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the Collector, sought for a reference under Section 37 of the Act. The petitioner states that the Collector made undue delay in referring the application to the arbitrator. The said application was, however, taken up by the learned arbitrator for disposal and was numbered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 1969. The learned arbitrator disposed of the above case along with two other applications and increased the valuation of the land to Rs. 10,000/ - per bigha in place of Rs. 20,000/ - per bigha claimed by the petitioner. The arbitrator did not however grant any interest on the excess amount determined by him for the period from the date of taking over possession of the land till payment of such excess, amount. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner himself had not claimed any interest before the arbitrator. Hence this application for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to enhance the compensation for the land acquired and to grant interest on the excess amount of compensation determined by the arbitrator from the date of acquisition of the land till the date of payment of compensation.

(3.) THE Assam case was out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. To the objection raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to non -maintainability of the application under Article 226, the Court observed as follows: -