TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On 13.11.1978 the appellant submitted its claim in regard to the entire lands (except the 99 acres 13 guntas which was taken subsequently) under Section 24(1) of the Act. Several reminders were sent by the appellant wherein the delay was highlighted and demand was made for payment of interest at 9% per annum. Ultimately on 13.12.2001 proceedings for determination of compensation were commenced by issue of notices for enquiry under Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act. The second respondent made an award dated 30.3.2005 determining the amount due as Rs.88,77,538.49 comprising Rs.43,22,656.65 as compensation and Rs.45,54,881.84 as interest thereon at 3% per annum from the date of possession to 31.3.2004. The said payment was accepted under protest by the appellant on 31.3.2005. 4. Aggrieved by the interest awarded only at the rate of 3% per annum, the appellant filed a writ petition (WP No.6375/2005). The appellant sought quashing the award insofar as it awarded interest at 3% per annum and prayed for award of interest at 9% from the date of delivery of possession till date of actual payment. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs.97,66,189.16 was due as on the date of writ petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts officers, and therefore maintainable. 7. The High Court relying upon the decision of this court in Suganmal v. State of MP - AIR 1965 SC 1740 has held that the prayer in the writ petition being one for payment of interest, it should be considered to be a writ petition filed to enforce a money claim and therefore, not maintainable. The observations in Suganmal related to a claim for refund of tax and have to be understood with reference to the nature of claim made therein. The decision in Suganmal has been explained and distinguished in several subsequent cases, including in UP Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Ltd ­ 2001 (2) SCC 549 and ABL International Ltd vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. - 2004 (3) SCC 553. The legal position becomes clear when the decision in Suganmal read with the other decisions of this Court on the issue, referred to below : (i) Normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a civil suit. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in dispute, where the collection of money was without the authority of law and there was no case of undue enrichment, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens. But even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a given case. (Vide U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Ltd ­ 2001 (2) SCC 549). (vi) Where the lis has a public law character, or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access to justice by way of a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be denied. [Vide Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242.] We are therefore of the view that reliance upon Suganmal was misplaced, to hold that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. Re : Question (ii) 8. The appellant contended that the compensation amount became due when possession of the lands was taken and as it was unjustly withheld, the appellant was entitled to interest on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... equitable principles, the courts have always awarded interest on the delayed payment of compensation in regard to acquisition of any property....... The said general principle will not apply in two circumstances. One is where a statute specifies or regulates the interest. In that event, interest will be payable only in terms of the provisions of the statute. The second is where a statute or contract dealing with the acquisition specifically bars or prohibits payment of interest on the compensation amount. In that event, interest will not be awarded. Where the statute is silent about interest, and there is no express bar about payment of interest, any delay in paying compensation or enhanced compensation for acquisition would require award of interest at reasonable rates on equitable grounds." This Court, dealing with an acquisition under the Defence of India Act, 1962 (which did not contain any provision either requiring or prohibiting payment of interest), upheld the award of interest at 6% per annum. 11. Section 24 of the Act requires the Collector, after possession of surplus land was taken over under Section 21(4) of the Act, to cause public notice requiring persons inte....