[2025:RJ-JP:43709] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5346/2020 Kapoor Chand Goyal Son Of Late Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 87 Years, Resident Of D-275, Sarvodaya Enclave, Delhi ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Chief Manager, Water Resources Department, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 5. Additional Collector (Rehabilitation) And Land Acquisition Officer, Bisalpur Project, Deoli, District Tonk. 6. Ex. Engineer (Construction), Division-Iii, Bisalpur Project, Deoli, District Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/10/2025 1. The petitioner and his brothers Shri Babulal and Shri Shyam Lal are khatedars of the land Khasra No. 1601 (Rakba 1.72), 1610 (Rakba No/2.72), 819 (Rakba 8.14), 882 (Rakba 10.48), 1609 (Rakba No.0.13), 883 (0.05), 915 (Rakba 0.02), total Khasra 7, admeasuring 23.26 hectares, situated in Village Kasir, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk. The respondent No.5 issued a notification dated 16.01.1997 and pursuant thereto, proceedings for acquisition of [2025:RJ-JP:43709] (2 of 6) [CW-5346/2020] the land of the petitioner were initiated for Bisalpur project. In lieu of the acquisition of the land, respondent no.5 passed an award on 27.06.2018 and the petitioner along with his two brothers were declared entitled for compensation. The petitioner holds 1/3rd share in the aforesaid land. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition stating therein that in spite of passing of the award in his favour, compensation has not been paid/disbursed in his favour despite numerous reminders and follow up. Hence, this writ petition. 2. During pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have made payment to the tune of Rs.1,05,78,496/- (Annexure-R1/1 to Annexure-R1/4) claiming it to be the complete payment including amount calculated as per the relevant provisions i.e. Section 30(3) of the Act of 2013. However, petitioner raises an objection and states it is not complete payment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are under obligation to immediately disburse the compensation amount after passing of the award as mandated by Section 77 of the Act, 2013 but without there being any fault or lapse on the part of the petitioner, only on the basis of a lame excuse i.e., shortage of budget, payment was not made after passing of the award. He submits that during pendency of the writ petition, compensation was paid after nearly 30 months of the date of award. He thus submits that in these circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for interest as per provisions of Section 77 read with Section 80 of the Act, 2013 on the amount determined by the competent authority under the Award from the date of declaration of the Award till the date of payment of the [2025:RJ-JP:43709] (3 of 6) [CW-5346/2020] amount of compensation. He places reliance on the following judgments:- (i). Roshanbi Aziz Motiwala vs. The Competent Authority & Ors. : Writ Petition No.1910 of 2022, decided on 06.04.2023 by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. (ii). Surendra Das vs. State of Bihar : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24143 of 2019; decided on 22.01.2020 by Hon’ble Patna High Court. 4. Vide order dated 23.01.2025, time was granted to counsel for the respondent to complete his instructions qua payment of interest else direction for filing affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt of Rajasthan, explaining the reason(s) for non-payment of interest, was given. In compliance of the order dated 23.01.2025, the respondents have filed additional affidavit. Learned AGC representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has been paid total amount as per the award including payment in accordance with Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013. Section 30(3) provides that in addition to market value of the land provided under Section 26, the collector shall award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under Sub Section (2) of Section 4, in respect of such land till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 30(3), payment has been made to the petitioner from 19.02.2017 to [2025:RJ-JP:43709] (4 of 6) [CW-5346/2020] 21.06.2018 at the rate of 12% per annum and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any other interest. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 6. The date of award and the date of actual payment is not disputed. The award was passed on 27.06.2018 whereas payment of award was made in January, 2021. A short issue is involved whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on the award from the date of award until the actual payment. Admittedly, payment of compensation was made in January, 2021 after a delay of 30 months of the date of final award. 7. Sections 77(1) and Section 80 of the Act of 2013 are relevant for resolving the controversy and thus, are reproduced hereinbelow:- “77. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Authority. - On making an award under Section 30, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interest entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them by depositing the amount in their bank accounts unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies in sub-section (2).” “80. 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 cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. [2025:RJ-JP:43709] (5 of 6) [CW-5346/2020] 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 cent per annum shall be payable from the date or expirty 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.” 8. In the opinion of this Court, the amount calculated and paid @ 12% per annum as per Section 30 (3) of the Act, 2013 is different from payment of interest provided under Section 80 of Act, 2013. The stand taken by the respondents that entire payment including interest calculated in terms of Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013 has been made to the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest, is not convincing to this Court. Section 30 refers to Award of solatium and the payment referred to in Section 30 (3) is a part of solatium. It nowhere says that it covers payment of interest. Same is separately provided in Section 80 of the Act, 2013. Solatium is a statutory additional amount (100% of the compensation) given to compensate for emotional distress due to compulsory land acquisition. On the other hand, interest is a separate payment that compensates for the delay in paying the compensation amount. 9. From the material available on record, it is clear that there is unreasonable delay in deposit/payment of the award on the part of the respondents. There is no justification for the respondents for not releasing payment from June 2018 to January 2021. The respondents ought to have made the payment of compensation [2025:RJ-JP:43709] (6 of 6) [CW-5346/2020] immediately as per the award which admittedly was not made by the respondents and there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was unnecessarily made to suffer in receiving payment of award. The payment of compensation was not released in favour of the petitioner for nearly thirty months. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to interest as per Section 80 of the Act, 2013. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner as per Section 80 of the Act of 2013 or before 30.11.2025. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay application also stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733