Invalid acquisition for want of jurisdiction cannot justify interest on restitution; repayment is confined to the principal amount.

An acquisition under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act was held unsustainable for want of jurisdiction, so the authority could not demand interest on the amount received under that invalid acquisition. Restitution was limited to return of the principal amount only, particularly because the appellants had been denied lawful possession of the property during the disputed period. The direction to pay interest at 15% was set aside, and on repayment of the amount received, the respondent-authority was required to hand over possession of the residence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were liable to pay interest at 15% on refund of the amount received under the acquisition proceedings after the acquisition under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act was held unsustainable for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The acquisition of the property had already been found unsustainable in law because the authority had no jurisdiction to proceed under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. In that situation, the appellants could not be burdened with interest on the amount received towards the invalid acquisition, especially when their lawful possession of the property had been denied by the respondent-authority.

Conclusion: The direction to pay interest at 15% was set aside. The appellants were required to refund only the amount received, and upon such repayment the respondent-authority was to hand over possession of the residence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an acquisition is held invalid for want of jurisdiction, the authority cannot insist on interest on the amount received under that invalid acquisition; restitution is confined to repayment of the principal amount.

---