http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ASSAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JITENDRA KUMAR SENAPATI & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/02/1981

BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1981 AIR  969            1981 SCR  (2) 850  1981 SCC  (2) 221        1981 SCALE  (1)328

ACT:      Land  Acquisition   Act,  1894,  sections  23  and  34- Agreement between the parties reduced in writing to accept a specified sum  by a  specified date two years after the land acquisition-Whehter the  words "would  not make  any further claim in  regard  to  compensation"  would  exclude  further claims of interests under the Act.

HEADNOTE:      Accepting the  State appeal,  negativing the  claim for interest and  dismissing the  original  writ  petition,  the Court, ^      HELD: The  expression "would not make any further claim in regard  to compensation"  in the agreement dated the 24th February,  1969   was  clearly   used  by  the  petitioners- respondents not in the sense in which it is used in sections 23  and   34  of   the  Land   Acquisition  Act   but   more comprehensively Meaning  reimbursement in  full satisfaction of their  claim in respect of the acquisition. The condition attached by  them to  the relinquishment  of their claim was that the  agreed amount  must be  paid to  them before  31st March  1969,   which  agreement   would  show  that  by  the acceptance of  the quantified  sum of  Rs. 4,41,202.45  they condoned the  delay in  payment and  also  relinquished  all future  claims  to  interest.  If  it  were  otherwise,  the respondents would  have expressly  reserved their  right  to claim interest under section 34 of the Act. [853 A-B, D-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1970.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  17.3.1970  of  the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 1151/69.      S. N. Chowdhary for the Appellant.      D. N. Mukherjee for Respondent No. 2.      V. S.  Desai, B. P.Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi and Miss Asha Jain for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KOSHAL, J.  This is  an appeal  by certificate  granted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

under sub-clause  (a) of  clause (1)  of article  133 of the Constitution of  India  by  the  High  Court  of  Assam  and Nagaland  against   its  judgment  dated  17th  March,  1970 accepting a  petition under  article 226 of the Constitution of India which arose in the circumstances that follow.      Land measuring  7.60 acres  and situated  at  Lawshtun, Bishnupur, Shillong,  belonged to  the 5  respondents when a notification under  section 4  of the  Land Acquisition  Act (hereinafter referred to as the 851 Act) was  published in  respect thereof  on 27th March 1967. Three days  later the  possession of the land was taken over by the  Collector, United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Shillong. Proceedings for the award of compensation to the respondents were pending  when negotiations took place between the Chief Secretary  to  the  Government  of  Assam  and  two  of  the respondents who  agreed to  the reduction  of  the  cost  of acquisition  of   the  land  from  Rs.  6,17,683.50  to  Rs. 4,63,262.57  (inclusive   of  cost   of  establishment   and contingency amounting  to  Rs.  22,060.12).  Thereafter  the Under Secretary  to the  Government of Assam in the Home and Political/Department wrote  to respondent  No.  2  a  letter dated 21st February, 1969 detailing the agreement arrived at between  the   Chief  Secretary   and  the  respondents  and requesting them-           "to please  submit immediately  a written document      signed by  all the co-sharers of the land to the effect      that yourself and all other co-sharers are agreeable to      accept the  L. A.  cost of  Rs. 4,41,202.45 for land at      Bishnupur and  that you and your co-shares will make no      further  claim   for  the   land   thus   acquired   by      Government."      The respondents  lost no  time in  sending their  reply which was  dated 24th February 1969 and in which they stated that the  delay in payment had caused to them great hardship and  that  they  had  agreed  to  reduce  the  cost  of  the acquisition in the course of their discussion with the Chief Secretary whom  they had  urged "at  the same  time that the payment should be made immediately." The reply was signed by all the five respondents and was accompanied by an agreement (also signed  by all  of them), the text of which may be set out in extense:           "We, all  the co-shares  interested  in  the  land      acquisition  case  for  construction  of  quarters  for      Special Branch Staff of Police Department at Lawsohtun,      Bishnupur, Shillong,  hereby agree  in response  to the      Government  Letter   No.  356/  66/55  dated  the  21st      February, 1969  to accept  the land acquisition cost of      Rs. 4,41,202.45P  (Rupees four lakhs forty one thousand      two hundred  and two and forty five paise only) subject      to Government  making payment  within the  31st  March,      1969 for  our land measuring more or less 7.60 acres at      Lawsohtun, Bishnupur, Shillong.           "We further  agree that  we will  make no  further      claim in  regard to  compensation  for  the  same  land      provided actual 852      payment is  received within  the above  period of  31st      March, 1969."      The agreement  between the  parties was  reduced by the Collector to  an award  dated the 25th March 1969 and on the very next  day the  sum of  Rs. 4,41,202.45  was paid to the respondents.      On 31st  March 1969 the respondents made an application to the  Chief Secretary  claiming interest at the rate of 12

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

1/2 percent per annum on the amount last mentioned. As there was no  response from  the Chief  Secretary, the respondents applied to the Collector on 7th July, 1969 requesting him to pay interest  On the  amount awarded  at the  rate of 6% per annum for the period from 30th March 1967 to 26th March 1969 under section 34 of the Act which runs thus:           "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 six per cent per annum      from the  time of  so taking  possession until it shall      have been so paid or deposited."      The Collector  informed the  respondents  by  a  letter dated 31st  July 1969  that no action was necessary "at this stage". It was then that the respondents knocked at the door of the High Court.      2. The High Court was of the opinion that the agreement between   the   parties   covered   only   the   amount   of "compensation" as  described in  the various sections of the Act including sections 23 and 34 and that interest had to be paid  on  such  compensation  by  reason  of  the  statutory requirement enacted  in that  behalf by section 34. The High Court, therefore,  accepted the petition filed before it and held that  the Collector was bound to pay to the respondents interest on the amount covered by the award at the rate of 6 per cent  per annum  from 30th March 1967 (being the date on which the  possession of  the land  was taken  over  by  the Collector) to the date of payment, i.e., 26th March 1969. It directed the  Collector to dispose of the petition dated the 7th July  1969 made  to him by the respondents in accordance with law.      3. The  short point  requiring determination  by us  is whether the  agreement arrived  at between  the  parties  in February 1969  embraced only  the "Compensation"  within the meaning of  that term as used in the Act or covered also the payment of  interest under section 34 there of. Having heard learned counsel  for the  parties we are of the opinion that the interpretation placed on the agreement by the High Court can not  be  sustained  and  that  the  respondent  are  not entitled to any interest on the sum already paid to them. 853      4. Although  it is true that in the agreement dated the 24th A  February 1969  which the respondents signed and sent to the  Government along with their letter of that date they stated that  they would not make any further claim in regard to "compensation",  but that expression, in our opinion, was clearly used by them not in the sense in which it is used in sections 23  and 34  of the  Act but  more  comprehensively, meaning reimbursement in full satisfaction of their claim in respect of  the acquisition. That this was 60 was made clear in the  letter addressed  to them  by the Under Secretary in which he expressly stated that-           "you and  your co-sharers  will  make  no  further      claim for the land thus acquired by the Government."      The Under Secretary did not use the word "compensation" in his  letter nor did the respondents use it in their reply in which,  on the  other hand,  they made  a grouse  of  the hardship which  the delay  in payment bad caused to them and brought it  to the  pointed attention of the under Secretary that immediate payment was an essential part of the bargain. In the  agreement signed by them (as pointed out above) they no doubt  used the  word "compensation"  but they added that they would  make no  further claim in regard to it if actual payment was  received by  them before  the 31st March, 1969. The condition  thus attached  by them to the agreement would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

show that  by the  acceptance of  the quantified  sum of Rs. 4,41,202.45 they  condoned the  delay in  payment  and  also relinquished all  future claims  to  interest.  If  it  were otherwise, there  is no reason why the respondents would not have expressly  reserved their right to claim interest under section 34  of the Act. The tenor of the two letters coupled with the agreement leads to no other conclusion.      4. In  the result  the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The judgment  of  the  High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the respondents’ petition decided by it is dismissed but with no order as to costs. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 854