IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi FMA 148 of 2025 K.K. Commodities LLP. Vs. Union of India & Others For the appellant : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Indrani Majumdar, Adv. For the Metro Railway/ : Mr. Pramod Kumar Drolia, Adv. Union of India Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Heard on : 07.05.2025 Judgment on : 22.05.2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:- 1. The appeal at the behest of appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated December 13, 2024 passed in W.P.A. No. 11480 of 2020. 2 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition being W.P.A. No. 11480 of 2020 turning down the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest in terms of Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner/appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 80 of the Act of 2013 and erroneously declined the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest over the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to such interest by operation of law as the petitioner received the compensation for their land acquired for the purpose of railway project and the compensation for such acquisition was paid much after the date of taking over possession of such land. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since, the petitioner was statutorily entitled to the interest on amount receivable by it towards acquisition of their land, the petitioner was under no obligation to specifically ask for such interest. He was entitled to such interest in terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013. The authorities were under obligation to award and pay such interest automatically. 5. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge committed error in holding that the petitioner was disentitled to the interest by 3 reason of the order passed on February 4, 2020 passed in C.O. No. 3104 of 2018. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the interest in terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013, being a statutory entitlement, could not have been denied on the grounds of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence or even res-judicata. Moreover, it was contended from the petitioner side that even the order passed in C.O. No. 3104 of 2018 granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate claim before the appropriate forum. According to the petitioner the instant writ petition was the appropriate forum where the petitioner staked their claim for the statutory interest. It was specifically pointed out that C.O. No. 3104 of 2018 was at the behest of railway authorities and the petitioner could not have raised the claim in such proceeding. 6. In support of its contentions, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 341 (Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Others vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Another), (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211 (Sunder vs. Union of India) and (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 28 (Union of India and Another vs. Pushpavathi and Others). 7. On the other hand, it was the contention of the learned advocate for the respondents that the petitioner received the amount of compensation much before taking possession of the acquired land. As 4 such, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest as contemplated under Section 80 of the Act of 2013. The respondents have denied the commencement of construction activities before actual physical possession of the acquired land was taken by them. 8. It was the further contention of the learned advocate for the respondent that the appellant had contested C.O. No. 3104 of 2018. It never raised the issue of interest envisaged under Section 80 of the Act of 2013. Therefore, such issue is barred by res-judicata in the present proceeding. 9. The appellant purchased land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 81, R.S. Khatian No. 88 measuring an area of 4 Kottah, 9 chhitak and 14 Sq. Ft. situated at Mouza Goragachha, within Khaspur Police Station by a registered sale deed dated November 24, 2003. Upon such purchase, the aforesaid land was duly mutated in the name of petitioner in the revenue records of Block Land & Land Reforms Office as well as that of the Rajpur- Sonarpur Municipality. LR ROR was published in the name of the petitioner and it has been paying taxes thereof. 10. By a notification No. 719 dated March 25, 2013 published in Gazette of India (Extra Ordinary), Government of India proposed to acquire the said land in terms of the provisions contained in Section 7 (1) of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 for the purpose of 5 undertaking the work of construction of Metro Railway from New Garia to Dumdum Airport Project. 11. The petitioner filed an objection against such notification with regard to acquisition of the aforesaid land on June 28, 2013 before the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 4. However, such objection of the petitioner was disallowed by the authorities and a of declaration of acquisition under Section 10 of the Act of 1978 was published. 12. Pursuant to such declaration, the petitioner filed its claim for compensation before the competent authority and a claim case being NGA 26 of 2014 was initiated. In the said proceeding, the petitioner also took out an amendment application seeking the compensation under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 13. It was further case of the petitioner that by a judgment and order dated August 3, 2017, the claim case of the petitioner was disposed of. Compensation to the tune of ₹1,99,13,156/-was awarded towards market value of the acquired land coupled with solatium on such amount. However, the authorities denied awarding the entitlements of the petitioners in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2013. The order so passed, directed the General Manager, Metro Railway, Kolkata i.e. 6 respondent No. 2 to pay the awarded sum to the petitioner within 2 months of the judgment and order. 14. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, carried an appeal under Section 13 (3) read with Section 16A of the Act of 1978 before the appellate authority designated under Section 16 (1) of the Act i.e. respondent No. 3, being Claim Appeal No. 22 of 2017. 15. It was specific case of the petitioner that during pendency of the claim case before respondent No. 4, some persons of the Metro Railway authority, took possession of the acquired land and started construction activities thereon on and from May 10, 2016, without paying compensation, in complete violation of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act of 1978. However, such claim of the petitioner to the effect that the railway authorities took possession and started construction activities, was based on order dated May 5, 2017, passed by the competent authority in a similar matter filed by the petitioner as also upon a RTI reply given by respondent No. 2 in this regard. The petitioner also referred certain photographs showing such construction activities. 16. The materials on record also reveal that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the appellate authority being respondent No. 3, setting aside the order passed by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.4. By the order passed by appellate authority on May 10, 2018, the 7 petitioner was found entitled to additional amount of compensation with effect from the date of notification i.e. March 25, 2013. The compensation amount was enhanced to ₹3,03,34,306/- taking into account the market value of acquired land with 100% solatium together with 12% additional amount from the date of preliminary notification till the date of award in accordance with Section 30 (3) of the Act of 2013. The appellate authority directed payment of such amount by two months of the order. 17. The petitioner has come up with a case that, since the railway authorities took possession of the acquired land and started construction activities thereon in violation of Section 11 of the Act of 1978, the appellate authority, erred by denying the statutory interest on the receivable amount in terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013. 18. The materials placed before us reveals that respondent No. 2 filed a revisional application before this court being C.O. No. 3104 of 2018 seeking determination of amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. During continuance of such proceeding, the respondent was directed to pay the petitioner compensation in consideration of market value of the acquired land coupled with solatium. During the pendency of C.O. No. 3104 of 2018, the petitioner received a sum of ₹1,99,13,150/- as part payment on November 8, 2018, being the amount of compensation admitted by the Metro Railway Authority, 8 without prejudice to right and contentions of the parties. The aforesaid C.O. No. 3104 of 2018 was finally disposed of by an order dated February 4, 2020, determining the amount of compensation receivable by the petitioner. The respondent deposited the balance amount of ₹52,10,575/- towards full and final payment of compensation receivable by the petitioner, as determined in C.O. No. 3104 of 2018. Such sum was deposited in the account of competent authority for its disbursal to the petitioner and accordingly, it was received by the petitioner without prejudice on September 26, 2019. 19. Being aggrieved with the order refusing to grant the statutory interest on the amount of compensation in terms of the provisions contained in Section 80 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition. It was contended that since C.O. No. 3104 of 2018 was at the behest of the respondents, the appellant had no occasion to raise the issue of payment of interest and therefore, the same cannot be said to have been denied to attract the principles of res-judicata. 20. From the case made out by the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner has filed this instant proceeding claiming interest on the compensation amount in terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013. Such claim of the petitioner is based on the fact that the Metro Railway authorities took possession of the acquired land much prior to the 9 payment of compensation and started ‘construction activities’ on and from May 10, 2016. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the appellant claims that he came to know of the commencement of the ‘construction activities’ from an order passed by the competent authority on May 5, 2017 in a similar matter which was filed by the appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant also relied upon an answer to an application under Right to Information Act dated November 30, 2019, the Chief Engineer/HQ, Metro Railway, Kolkata informed the RTI applicant one Debabrata Chandra that ‘construction activities’ of Kavi Subhas Station Building for extension of Metro Railway Project from New Garia to Airport was started from May 10, 2016 in the acquired land of Metro Railway within the existing railway boundary. Such an answer was in response to a specific query as to from which month and year the ‘construction activities’ of Kavi Subhas Station Building started for extension of Metro Railway Project from New Garia to Airport. 21. The land of the appellants was acquired by the Metro Railway for the purpose of construction of Metro Railway Project from New Garia to Airport. The specific query in the RTI application was with regard to the construction of Kavi Subhas Station Building. The project of extension of Metro Railway from New Garia to Airport includes a large area. The 10 aforesaid RTI information cannot be taken to give a specific date for the start of ‘construction activities’ on the land acquired from the appellant. 22. In his amended petition for claim, the writ petitioner has made a specific averment that the Metro Railway Authorities acquired lands in several Mouzas for the project of extension of Metro Railway from New Garia to Dum Dum Airport. The commencement of construction for Kavi Subhas Station Building cannot be construed to mean the commencement of construction work on the land belonging to the appellant. Since the project covers an area between New Garia to Dum Dum Airport, it cannot be ruled out that several lands situated in different Mouzas might have been acquired by the Railway Authorities or possession thereof might have been taken at different points of time. 23. From the material placed before us, it transpires that the appellants preferred an appeal against the order passed by the competent authority in the claim case. The said appeal being Claim Appeal No. 22/2017 was disposed of by a judgment and order dated May 10, 2018. The judgment in such appeal, placed before us, notes that the appellant filed an application for amendment of claim praying for compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2013. Such prayer was allowed. In the fourth corners of the judgment and order in the appeal, nothing transpires that the appellant ever made a claim for interest in terms of Section 80 of 11 the Act of 2013. Needless to say, that the judgment and order in the appeal was delivered on May 10, 2018 and by that time, according to the claim by the appellant, the possession of the acquired land was already taken by Metro Railway Authorities. There is no explanation as to why such interest was not claimed in the claim case or in the appeal thereof. 24. In response to the averment on the part of the appellant that the Metro Railway Authorities took possession of the acquired land on February 17, 2017, the Metro Railway Authorities, in their report in the form of affidavit, have made a categorical statement that the compensation amount for the acquired land was deposited with the learned competent authority, Metro Railway, Kolkata by March 3, 2020 and, thereafter, upon making full payment of compensation amount, the Metro Railway, Kolkata took possession of the acquired land on June 4, 2020. The respondents have relied upon document at page 115 of the paper book which goes to show that the possession of the acquired land was made over to the Metro Railway Authorities on June 4, 2020. One Bishan M. Agarwal on behalf of K.K. Commodities Private Limited signed the document handing over the possession of the acquired land in respect of Acquisition Claim Case No. NGA/2014 on June 4, 2020. The possession was taken by the representative of the competent authority, Metro Railway Authorities, Kolkata on such date of putting his signature on the document. 12 25. As noted above, the RTI information relating to construction of Kavi Subhas Station Building made by some person other than the representative of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration to arrive at the conclusion that the possession of the acquired land belonging to the appellant was taken in 2017 and ‘construction activities’ started thereon. Our attention is also not drawn to any order passed by the competent authority on May 5, 2017 in a similar matter filed by the appellant. On the contrary, the document shows handing over and taking over of possession appearing at page 115 of the paper book, clearly establishes that the possession of the acquired land was taken by Metro Railway Authorities on June 4, 2020. 26. In such view of the fact, as it transpires that the compensation of the acquired land was paid and deposited with the competent authority on March 3, 2020 which is much prior to taking over possession of the acquired land. The Metro Railway Authorities took over possession after full and final payment of the compensation determined by the competent authority and, subsequently, by the appellate authority. Therefore, the material on record establishes that the possession of the land was taken over by the respondents after payment of the compensation. In such view of the facts, no question of interest in terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013 does arise at all. Section 80 of the Act of 2013 contemplates a 13 situation where possession of the acquired land is taken before payment of compensation which is not the case in the present proceeding. 27. Section 80 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 seems to be pari materia to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In Union of Induan and Anr. V. Pushpavathi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable although the appellant had an alternative remedy of seeking reference to the civil court under Section 28-A (3) read with Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1894 with regard to payment of interest if the compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land. The Hon’ble Supreme court, with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition laid down to the following:- “41. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the dispute in relation to non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in writ petition. In other words, reference under Section 18 or Section 28-A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the civil court.” 28. Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India (supra), though, the issue before the 14 Hon’ble Court was the nature of the amount upon which interest was liable to be paid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down thus:- “23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act, a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says: “31. (1) On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.” The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay “the compensation awarded by him” to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub- sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. 24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that “if such compensation” is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession 15 of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum 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”. It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted.” 29. In Patel Joitaram Kalidas& Others vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Another (supra) as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering an issue whether interest was payable on the additional amount payable under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of the Act of 1894. In deciding such issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the ratio laid down in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India (supra) and held as follows:- “17. Having regard to the submissions urged on behalf of the respondents we could have remitted the matter to the High 16 Court to give an opportunity to the claimants to make a claim of interest before the High Court. That however, would only be a formality because having regard to the law laid down in Sunder [(2001) 7 SCC 211] , the High Court is bound to award the interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) and solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act. Moreover, grant of interest on these amounts is consequential and automatic and involves only arithmetical calculation and not application of judicial mind or exercise of judicial discretion. It is no doubt true that the appellants ought to have made such a claim before the High Court, even in the appeals preferred by the State. But in fairness to the appellants it must be conceded that during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court the law as laid down in Prem Nath Kapur [(1996) 2 SCC 71] held the field and, therefore, it would have been futile for them to claim interest. The claimants could have filed such an application before the High Court if the judgment in Sunder [(2001) 7 SCC 211] was pronounced when the appeals were pending before the High Court. Unfortunately, they could not do so because the judgment in Sunder [(2001) 7 SCC 211] and the impugned judgment in the appeals preferred by the State before the High Court were pronounced on the same day. Having regard to these facts, peculiar to this case, we are persuaded to allow the appeals preferred by the appellants as a special case in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to interest on the amounts payable to them under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. We direct the Collector to calculate the interest payable and pay the same to the appellants without 17 further delay. These appeals are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.” 30. However, in the case at hand, we are not faced with an issue as to which amount may be taken into consideration upon which interest to be calculated. The issue which has fallen for our consideration in the present proceeding is, if at all, the appellants are entitled to an interest in terms with the provisions of Section 80 of the Act of 2013. Section 80 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, reads as follows:- “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: 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 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.” 31. In the instant proceeding, we have noted that the amount of compensation for the acquired land was paid to the appellant, well before taking possession of such land. The appellant has not been able to prove 18 that possession of the land was taken by the respondents before making payment of compensation thereof. In that view of the facts, the appellant is not entitled to any interest in terms of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act of 2013. 32. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the instant appeal being FMA 148 of 2025 is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs and thus, disposed of. 33. In view of the disposal of the appeal, connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 34. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. [MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.] 35. I agree. [DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]