# Jaswant Singh & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 1045
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-04-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 78690 of 2011
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Moonis
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaswant-singh-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-42936
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Agreement)Rules, 1997-Claim of interest
on delayed amount-once on basis of
agreement award passed-compensation
accepted-after elapsed of six years-claim
of interest as per provisions section 34 of
the
Act-held-once
quantum
of
compensation
agreed
and
paid-ends
entire dispute-in absence of specific
provision of interest in Rules 1997-in
absence of plea taken in writ petitioninterest can not be paid by virtue of
Review Petition-dismissed.

Held: Para-9
We are thus of the opinion that the
provisions of the Rules of 1997 are not in
conflict with Section 34 of the Act. The
interest part has deliberately not been
included in the Rules of 1997 for the
clear reason that once the parties agree
upon
a
particular
quantum
of
compensation and party concerned is
paid the said amount, that would end the
entire dispute and the matter shall stand
settled once and for all.

## Text

2 All]. Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1045
powers under the rule to initiate any
proceedings, it is not open for the
respondents to withhold retiral dues,
merely on pendency of criminal appeal.

22. The impugned order dated
22.11.2012 passed by Chief Engineer (Jal
Vidyut), respondent no. 3 and order dated
6.6.2013 passed by Executive Engineer,
Electricity
Distribution
Division,
Pilibheet, respondent no. 4 is quashed.

23. The respondents are directed to
release arrears of salary for the suspension
period, retiral dues and terminal benefits
of the petitioner within three months from
the date of service of this order before the
competent authority. Interest @ 9% is
awarded on delayed payment of pension
and gratuity from the date of entitlement
to the date of actual payment, failing
which same shall carry interest @ 18%
per annum from the date the amount falls
due.

24. With the above directions, the
writ petition is allowed.

25. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 78690
of 2011
in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73515 of 2010

Jaswant Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. . ..Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri S.F.A. Naqvi
Sri Faizan Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

U.P. Land Acquisition(Determination of
compensation & Declaration of Award by
Agreement)Rules, 1997-Claim of interest
on delayed amount-once on basis of
agreement award passed-compensation
accepted-after elapsed of six years-claim
of interest as per provisions section 34 of
the
Act-held-once
quantum
of
compensation
agreed
and
paid-ends
entire dispute-in absence of specific
provision of interest in Rules 1997-in
absence of plea taken in writ petitioninterest can not be paid by virtue of
Review Petition-dismissed.

Held: Para-9
We are thus of the opinion that the
provisions of the Rules of 1997 are not in
conflict with Section 34 of the Act. The
interest part has deliberately not been
included in the Rules of 1997 for the
clear reason that once the parties agree
upon
a
particular
quantum
of
compensation and party concerned is
paid the said amount, that would end the
entire dispute and the matter shall stand
settled once and for all.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

Re-Delay Condonation Application

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. No counter affidavit has been
filed to the affidavit filed alongwith the
application for condonation of delay.

2. We are satisfied with the
explanation given in the affidavit for
condoning the delay and accordingly this
application is allowed and the delay in
filing the review petition is condoned.
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Re-Review Petition

3. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi alongwith
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioners as
well
as
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents no. 1
to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
contesting respondent no. 4 and have
perused the record.

4. The land of the petitioners was
acquired by notifications issued in the
year 2003 and the possession of the land
was taken from the petitioners on 22nd
August, 2003. By means of an agreement
entered into between the petitioners and
the respondents which was under the U.P.
Land
Acquisition
(Determination
of
Compensation and Declaration of Award
by Agreement) Rules, 1997, payment of
compensation
to
the
tune
of
Rs.
2,26,78,650/- was made to the petitioners
on 16.10.2004. Then, after a gap of nearly
six years, on 12.7.2010 the petitioners
moved a representation for payment of
interest on the compensation amount from
the date of taking over possession till the
date of payment. In December, 2010 the
petitioners filed this writ petition with the
following prayers:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent Authorities to pay the interest
at the rate of 9% per annum for the first
year and at the rate of 15% interest for
the subsequent years for the delayed in
payment
of
compensation
to
the
Petitioners.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent Authorities to decide the
Representation dated 12.07.2010 of the
Petitioners within a stipulated period.

iii. Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case."

5. The said writ petition was
dismissed by order dated 20.12.2010, the
review of which has been sought by this
review petition. For ready reference, the
order dated 20.12.2010 is reproduced
below:

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra
Pratap Singh for the respondent no. 4NOIDA and have perused the record.

The case of the petitioners is that
their
land
was
acquired
by
the
respondent-NOIDA. It is contended that
though they have been paid compensation
but the interest for the delayed payment
has not been paid to the petitioners. Along
with this writ petition, the petitioners have
not filed any award under which they
have been paid compensation.

Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no.
4 states that the payment of compensation
has been made to the petitioners on the
basis of an agreement entered into
between the State and the petitioners.

The petitioners do not deny this fact
but surprisingly no copy of the agreement
has been filed along with this petition. In
the absence of the same, the prayer made
in this petition does not deserve to be
granted.
Even
otherwise,
if
the
2 All]. Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1047
compensation has been paid on the basis
of the agreement and if there is any
breach of agreement, it is for the
petitioners to approach the Civil Court
and writ would not be the appropriate
remedy.

This writ petition is thus dismissed.
No order as to costs. "

6. Sri Naqvi, learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners would be
entitled to payment of interest at the rates
specified under Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act as the Rules of 1997,
(under which the agreement was entered
into), do not provide for payment of
interest and since the Rules are silent with
regard to payment of interest, the
provisions of the Act would automatically
be made applicable. He has further
submitted that the Rules cannot override
the provisions of the Act and once the Act
provides for interest to be paid on delayed
payment, the same would be applicable
even to the cases in which compensation
is paid under the Rules of 1997.

7. Learned Standing Counsel,
appearing for the State-respondents as
well as Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
contesting
respondent
no.
4
have,
however, submitted that the compensation
is paid under the Rules of 1997 on the
basis of compromise and agreement
which is entered into between the parties
and thus there would no question of
payment of interest from the date of
taking over possession till the date of
payment of compensation as all aspects
regarding compensation, solatium and
interest etc. are taken care of while
determining the amount under the Rules
of 1997. It has further been submitted that
under the form of agreement as provided
under the Rules of 1997 it is specified that
no claim for any amount in addition to the
amount agreed upon as compensation
would be payable and the agreed
compensation shall be accepted without
any protest. It is thus submitted that once
a party has accepted the amount of
compensation and agreed not to claim any
further amount, the interest as claimed is
not acceptable. In support of this
submission they have relied upon a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
State
of
Karnataka
Vs.
Sangappa
Dyavappa Biradar AIR 2005 SC 2204. It
is submitted that though the matter did not
relate to Rules of 1997 but since the same
relates to consent award having been
passed between the parties, the ratio of the
said judgment would be applicable. In the
said judgment, in paragraph 9 it has been
held that "after the consent awards were
passed, statements were also made by the
respective villagers declaring that they
would not approach any Court for
enhancement of the compensation for any
other reason." Then in paragraph 15 it is
observed that "it is also trite that by
reason of such agreement, the right to
receive amount by way of solatium or
interest can be waived." The same view
has also been taken by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Daya
Shamji Bhai AIR 1996 SC 133 wherein it
has been held that once the parties have
agreed to the amount under Section 11 (2)
of the Land Acquisition Act, then the
award need not contain payment of
interest, solatium and additional amount
unless it is also a part of the contract
between the parties.

8. On the contrary Sri Naqvi has
placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court in the case of Ivo Agnelo
Santimano Fernandes and Others Vs.
Government of Goa and Another (2011)
11 SCC 506. Having gone through the
said judgment, we are of the opinion that
the same does not relate to the award
having been passed by way of agreement
and hence the ratio of the said judgment
would not be applicable to the facts of the
present case.

9. Rules of 1997 have been framed by
the State of U.P. so that compensation be
determined by way of agreement between
the parties so that quietus is put to litigation
and the dispute between the parties. It does
not leave any scope for any further
interpretation with regard to payment of
interest, solatium etc. Though learned
counsel for the review petitioners has
vehemently argued that the provisions of the
Rules would not override the provisions of
the Act and once it is provided under Section
34 that interest at particular rates is to be paid
for delayed payment (which would be from
the date of taking over possession till the date
of payment of compensation), yet we are of
the opinion that the said Section 34 would
not be applicable in the present case. When
there is no provision made for payment of
interest on compensation as determined on
the basis of compromise or agreement, the
other provisions of the Act which relate to
interest, solatium etc. would actually not be
attracted. Once the parties have agreed upon
a particular quantum of compensation to be
paid, the same is deemed to be inclusive of
all the benefits given under the Act, which
may be grant of solatium, interest or any
additional amount. We are thus of the
opinion that the provisions of the Rules of
1997 are not in conflict with Section 34 of
the Act. The interest part has deliberately not
been included in the Rules of 1997 for the
clear reason that once the parties agree upon
a particular quantum of compensation and
party concerned is paid the said amount, that
would end the entire dispute and the matter
shall stand settled once and for all.

10. We have considered this aspect
of the matter because such ground has
been taken in the review petition,
although we may mention that no such
specific
ground
with
regard
to
applicability of Section 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act was taken in the writ
petition.

11.

For
the
reasons
given
hereinabove, this review petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
--------