Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court could direct payment of interest on land acquisition compensation otherwise than in accordance with Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Analysis: The statutory scheme was treated as exhaustive on the subject of interest. Section 34 governs interest on compensation when possession is taken before payment, and Section 28 permits interest only on excess compensation awarded by the Court. No other provision authorises payment of interest on equitable grounds or in a manner different from the statute. As the Act is a complete and self-contained code on compensation and interest, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to enlarge the entitlement beyond the statutory rates, manner, and period prescribed by the Act.
Conclusion: The direction to pay interest outside Sections 28 and 34 was impermissible and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The writ court had no power to grant interest on equitable considerations contrary to the statutory scheme governing land acquisition compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete and self-contained scheme for payment of interest, courts cannot, in writ jurisdiction, award interest on equitable grounds or in a manner not authorised by the statute.