Court Denies Interest on Compensation & Improvements Cost, Emphasizes Proper Forum for Business Losses

The court dismissed the petitioners' claims for interest on compensation and emoluments, as well as for the cost of improvements on the property. It held that the I.T. Act does not provide for interest on compensation until after possession and that business cessation losses should be addressed in a proper forum, not under art. 226. The court emphasized that damages cannot be assessed under art. 226 and that the reliefs sought by the petitioners were not granted.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of property acquisition under s. 269F(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Claim for interest on compensation and emoluments paid to chowkidar.
3. Claim for cost of improvements on the property.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to grant reliefs under art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The property of the petitioners was acquired by the Competent Authority under s. 269F(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the acquisition order was passed in 1976. The petitioners were required to surrender possession, which they agreed to, but possession was ultimately taken in 1980 after delays by the authorities.

2. The petitioners sought interest at 12% on compensation from the date of their letter in 1977 until possession, along with emoluments paid to the chowkidar. The court held that the I.T. Act does not provide for interest on compensation until after possession, and the claim for interest was unwarranted. The court also stated that any loss suffered due to business cessation should be addressed in a proper forum, not under art. 226.

3. The petitioners claimed the cost of improvements on the property, but the respondent authorities had already paid Rs. 28,000 for the improvements. The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to any further amount for improvements.

4. The court concluded that none of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners could be granted in the proceedings under art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, emphasizing that damages cannot be assessed in this jurisdiction.

This judgment clarifies the limitations of seeking reliefs under art. 226 and highlights the importance of following the provisions of the I.T. Act regarding compensation and interest on acquired properties.

---