JUDGMENT
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. The present suit was instituted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,34,555/-, detailed calculations and heads of which have been given in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint. The aforesaid claim of the plaintiff against the defendant as set out in the plaint is set out below :
(a) Interest u/Sec. 34 of L.A. Act,
1894 @ 6% per annum on the
awarded compensation amount of
Rs.1,22,130/- from 14.3.68 (the
date of dispossession from the
acquired land) upto 26.4.1982
(the date on which the payment
was made to the plaintiff/
Corporation) viz. for 14 years
and 44 days: 1,03,472.55
Less such interest u/Sec. 34 of
the L.A. Act already awarded by
the L.A.C. for the period
w.e.f. 14.3.68 to 12.1.1969: 6,123.62
97,348.93
(b) Interest u/Sec. 4(3) of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment & Validation)
Act, 1967 @ 6% per annum on
the assessed market value of
Rs.1,06,200/- from 13.11.1962
upto 26.4.1982 (the date when
the compensation was offered to
the plaintiff/Corporation) viz.
for 19 and 155 days: 1,23,773.92
Less such interest u/Sec. 4(3) of
the Amendment Act, 1967 awarded by
the LAC for the period
13.11.1962 to 12.1.1969: 39,296.90
94,477.02
1,81,825.95
(c) Interest by way of damages @ 18% per
annum on 1,81,825.95 w.e.f. 26.4.82
till 15.12.1983: 52,729.05
2,34,555.00
2. The lands of Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. situated in Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi in Khasra Nos.1181/1118/ 10 etc. alongwith their parts were acquired by the defendants under Award No. 2193 which is Ex. PW1/7 dated 13th January,1969. By virtue of Section 7 of the Life Insurance Act,1956 all rights, assets and liabilities of all the Insurance Companies including that of the Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. stood transferred and vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the plaintiff w.e.f. 1st September, 1956. In respect of land measuring 280 bighas and 7 biswas pertaining to the Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. notification under Section 4 was issued on 13th November,1959. In respect of the aforesaid land a notification under Section 6 was also issued on 7th December,1966. Possession of the aforesaid land was taken by the Collector on 14th March,1968 and an award being Award No. 2193 was made and announced on 13th January,1969. It is stated in the plaint that the amount of compensation in terms of the aforesaid award, which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/7 was neither tendered for payment to the plaintiff nor deposited in Court by the defendants as required and contemplated under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff, however, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 643/69 and titled as LIC Vs. Union of India; wherein the reference court enhanced the market value from Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. Against the aforesaid award passed by the reference court both the plaintiff as well as the defendants filed appeals in this Court which were registered as RFA 7/81 by Union of India and RFA 476/79 by the plaintiff.
3. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the market value of the land was further enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per bigha; whereas the appeal filed by the Union of India, one of the defendants, was dismissed on 12th March, 1981. Compensation of the acquired land was paid to the plaintiff on 24th April, 1982.
4. In the light of the aforesaid facts the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants claiming only the amount towards interest as detailed above.
5. The defendants filed their written statement and, therefore, on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 18th October, 1985:
1. Whether the suit has been instituted and the plaint has been
signed and verified by a duly authorised person? OPP
2. Whether the notice dated July 11,1983 under Section 80 of the
Code of Civil Procedure was not served on the defendants prior to
the institution of the suit? If so, to what effect? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?
OPD
4. Whether the suit for mere interest is not maintainable? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed in
the suit because of the delayed payment of the amount of compen-
sation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector? OPP
6. To what amount is the plaintiff entitled? OPP
7. Relief?
6. Evidence was allowed to be led by filing affidavits, in pursuance of which the plaintiff has filed its affidavit by way of evidence but none was filed on behalf of the defendants although he was allowed to argue the matter. On subsequent dates none appeared on behalf of the defendants and on 4th March, 1994 one last opportunity was granted to the defendants to argue the matter subject to payment of Rs.1,000/-. The said amount of cost was also not paid nor anybody appeared on behalf of the defendants when the matter was listed for arguments and accordingly the Counsel for the plaintiff was heard and judgment and order was reserved.
Issue No. 1:
The authority of the person instituting the present suit and to sign and verify the pleadings has been indicated and stated on oath in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Regulation 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation Regulation,1959 made in pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Life Insurance Act XXXI of 1956 and published in the Gazette of India dated 13th February, 1960 empowers the five Zonal Managers of the plaintiff Corporation at its Zonal Offices including Delhi, to institute, conduct, defend and represent the Corporation in all suits in all Courts of their respective zones. By virtue of the aforesaid power, the said Zonal Managers were also empowered to delegate any of the authorities aforesaid to any of the respective Zonal Offices or any Divisional Office or Branch Office of the Corporation in their respective zones.
7. Sh. R. Narayanan was the Zonal Manager of Zonal Office of plaintiff Corporation at Delhi from 31st March, 1979 till filing of the suit in December, 1983 and the said Sh. R. Narayanan in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the aforesaid Regulation No. 41 delegated the authority to Sh. G.S. Srivastava, Deputy Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi to institute suits, to appoint advocates, sign Vakalatnamas and pleadings for and on behalf of the plaintiff-Corporation.
8. In the light of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the plaintiff and there being no denial of the aforesaid fact, the present issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants holding that the suit has been instituted and the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person.
Issue No. 2:
9. It is also stated in the evidence adduced by Sh. R.K. Sharma, Administrative Officer (Legal) of the plaintiff-Corporation that a statutory notice under Section 80 CPC was got served upon the defendants and a carbon
copy of the said notice is also placed on record and exhibited as PW1/1. Thus, this issue about the service of notice under Section 80 CPC on the defendants also stands proved there being no rebuttal evidence.
Issue No. 3:
10. This issue relates to the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. By virtue of Section 7 of the Life insurance Corporation Act, all rights, assets and liabilities of all the Insurance Companies including Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. stood transferred and vested in the plaintiff w.e.f. 1st September, 1996. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue was on the defendants. No evidence has been led by the defendants to prove and establish that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. On the other hand, in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act read with the evidence produced in the suit, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit and, therefore, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 4:
11. Onus of proving this issue was also on the defendants. No ground or reason is shown by the defendants as to why the present suit filed for recovery of interest is not maintainable. In this connection, reference may be made to the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. A reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it amply clear that the said provisions do not provide for any remedy for enforceability of the award of the Collector. It only authorises a party to claim for a reference to have higher compensation or to have the market value fixed as per Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, the suit of the present nature would definitely lie and is maintainable in respect of a claim for interest not paid by the Collector. The present suit has been filed for availing benefits as provided for under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said section provides that when the Collector does not deposit or tender the amount before taking possession of the land, then he has to pay interest on the amount awarded by him. Therefore, non-payment and/or refusal of the Collector to make payment towards interest on any account including that of delayed payment, gives rise to cause of action and on such cause of action a suit is maintainable. In coming to the aforesaid decision, I am fortified by a decision of this Court in LIC Vs. Union of India and Others; being S.No. 574/82 disposed of on 20th December, 1991.
This issue is also, therefore, answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 5:
12. The plaintiff in the present suit has claimed interest, as shown above, mainly on three heads: (i) interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act @ 6% p.a. on the awarded compensation amount; (ii) payment of interest under Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act; and interest
by way of damages.
13. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and evidence available on record, I proceed to deal with this issue and give my findings thereon.
14. In order to appreciate the claim of the plaintiff, it would be necessary to extract the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act:
“Payment of Interest. – When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of (nine per centum) per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:
Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.”
15. Section 31 of the Act provides that if the award is made, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the interested person and Sub-section (2) of Section 31 provides that if the amount is not received by the interested party, the Collector shall deposit the same in the Court. Thus the statute imposes a responsibility and duty on the Collector to make payment of the compensation awarded by him in terms of the award to the interested person.
16. It has been stated by Shri R.K. Sharma, who has filed affidavit by way of evidence in the instant case on behalf of the plaintiff/Corporation that after the announcement of award on 13th January, 1969, the amount of compensation in terms of the award was neither tendered for payment to the plaintiff nor deposited in Court by the Collector under the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, in spite of several approaches made by or on behalf of the plaintiff. It was categorically stated that the plaintiff did not inform as to when the payment of award of the compensation amount is going to be made to it. It is also stated that part payment of the awarded compensation amount was made to the plaintiff by a Collector on 26th April, 1982. Thus, it is dear from the aforesaid evidence on record that the defendants failed to comply with the aforesaid statutory provisions as laid down under Section 31(1) and (2) of the Act.
17. In the case of LIC Vs. Union of India (supra) this Court held that the word ‘tender’ appearing in Section 31 of the Act expresses not merely the readiness and ability to pay or perform at the time and place but also the actual production of the things to be paid or delivered either. In that case, it was further held that if the Collector fails to tender the amount of compensation awarded to the plaintiff on or before taking possession of the land or if he fails to deposit the same in the Court after the award was made then, there is clear violation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act.
18. In view of failure on the part of the defendants to lead any evidence to show that the requirements were followed there appears to be a violation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act in the present case also.
19. In the present case the plaintiff claims interest on account of delayed payments from 14th March,1968, the date of dispossession from the acquired land upto 26th April, 1982. The award was made and published on 13th January,1969 and possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 14th March, 1968. Thus, it is established that possession of the land in this case was taken by the Collector before publication of the award. No evidence has been adduced by the defendants nor there is any other evidence to show that the Collector tendered the amount of compensation to the plaintiff or deposited the same with the Court, till 26th April, 1982. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is a violation of the statutory revisions on the part of the defendants in not tendering the compensation amount and thus the plaintiff shall be entitled to payment of interest in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
20. In view of my aforesaid findings, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 6:
21. Having thus decided that the plaintiff is entitled to interest the issue that arises for my consideration is as to at what rate and for which period such interest could be directed to be paid to the plaintiff.
22. In the light of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, I find that interest under Section 34 of the Act was awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer for the period from 14th March,1968 to 12th January,1969 i.e. from the date of taking over possession till the date of making the award. Thus, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to payment of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on account of delayed payment from the date of the award i.e. from 13th January, 1969 to 26th April, 1982 i.e. the date on which the payment was made to the plaintiff.
23. The plaintiff has also claimed interest under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance,1967 @ 6% p.a. on the assessed market value of Rs.1,06,200/- from 13th November, 1962 upto 26th
April, 1982. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that such interest under Section 4(3) of the Act was awarded by the Collector for the
period from 13th November, 1962 to 12th January, 1969. My attention is drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sant Singh & Others Vs. Union of India; reported in 1996 V AD (Delhi) 499 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that if there be difference of more than three years between the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant would also be entitled to interest under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act @ 6% p.a. from the date of expiry of three years from the date of Section 4 notification till the date of making payment. I am bound by the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court. In the present case also the
notification under Section 4 was issued on 13th November,1959 whereas notification under Section 6 was issued on 7th December, 1966, time lag being more than three years. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid decision,
the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on that account from the date of expiry of three years of the date of Section 4 notification till the date of making the payment i.e. from 13th November, 1962, the date of expiry of three years from the date of Section 4 notification till 26th April, 1982, the date when the compensation was paid to the plaintiff.
24. In view of my aforesaid findings and having arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on account of delayed payment and in terms of Section 4 (3)
of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance,1967, the further point that I am left with to decide in the suit is at what rate such interest is to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
25. On perusal of the evidence on record it is manifest that interest under Section 4 (3) of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 was paid by the Collector from 13th November, 1962 to 12th January, 1969. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff, becomes entitled to be paid on that account from 13th January, 1969 to 26th April, 1982.
26. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted before me that the facts, circumstances and issues arising for decision in the present suit are similar and therefore, covered by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the cases of LIC Vs. Union of India (supra) and Sant Singh & Others Vs. Union of India (supra). Thus, following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that it would be reasonable if the plaintiff is granted interest on the awarded amount @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 13th January, 1969 to 26th April, 1982 on account of delayed payment. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 @ 6% p.a. on the assessed market value of Rs.1,06,200/- from 13th January, 1969 to 26th
April, 1982.
27. In the aforesaid case of LIC Vs. Union of India (supra) no other interest by way of damages and/or by way of pendente lite and future interest was granted. Counsel for the plaintiff specifically stated that the issues arising in the present suit are squarely covered by the decisions given by this Court in the case of LIC Vs. Union of India (supra) and Sant Singh & Others Vs. Union of India (supra). Thus, the claim for interest made by the plaintiff in the present suit by way of damages @ 18% p.a. from 25th April, 1982 till 5th December, 1983, the date of filing of the suit as also the claim for pendente lite and future interest stands rejected.
28. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby pass a decree with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to pay interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act @ 6% p.a. from 13th January, 1969 till 24th April, 1982 and interest under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 @ 6% p.a. on the assessed market value of Rs.1,06,200/- from 13th January, 1969 to 26th April, 1982. Decree be prepared accordingly.