I.S. Tiwana, J.
1. The property of the petitioners purchased through two sale deeds dated April 17, 1973, was acquired by the Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 269F(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The factum and validity of this acquisition is not in dispute. The order of acquisition was passed on May 20, 1976. In pursuance of this order, the Competent Authority issued a notice on December 1, 1977 (annex. P-4), requiring the petitioners to surrender the possession of that property within thirty days of the receipt of the same In reply to this notice, the petitioners intimated the said authority, vide their letter dated December 19, 1977 (annex. P-5), that they were ready and willing to surrender the possession. In fact they requested the said authority to take possession of the property in question within a fortnight from the receipt of that letter. By way of reply to this letter the Competent Authority, vide its communication dated July 1, 1978, intimated the petitioners that since the matter with regard to the payment of compensation had already been referred to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak, further action in that regard would be taken on receipt of instructions from the said authority. The petitioners again, vide their letter dated August 24, 1978 (annex. P-7), informed the Competent Authority that in spite of their various requests it had failed to take possession of the property and to safeguard the interests of the authorities, they, as per necessity, had to engage a chowkidar for the upkeep and maintenance of the property and that the authority concerned would be liable to pay them interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12% and to reimburse the emoluments of the chowkidar. The matter, however, remained pending with the authority for a considerable period of time and ultimately possession was taken on July 19, 1980.
2. The petitioners through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek the following two reliefs :
(i) As a result of the acquisition order, they had to stop their business in the building of the factory acquired and thus have been made to suffer a heavy loss. They claim interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation with effect from the date they wrote their letter dated December 19, 1977 (annex. P-5), till the day of taking of possession by the authorities. They also claim the emoluments paid to the chowkidar.
(ii) They are also entitled to be paid the cost of improvements amounting to Rs. 28,676 effected during the period April 17, 1973, to May 20, 1976, that is, the date of purchase of the property in question and the acquisition of the same. On behalf of the respondent-authorities, it is pleaded that the first relief mentioned above cannot possibly be granted to the petitioners in view of the provisions of the I.T. Act and so far as the second relief is concerned, the petitioners have already been paid Rs. 28,000 as the cost of improvements effected by them with effect from the date of purchase to the date of commencement of the proceedings.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that none of the two reliefs claimed by the petitioners can be granted in these proceedings. It is the admitted case that the I.T. Act does not envisage the payment of any interest on the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners on account of the acquisition of their property in accordance with the provisions of the Act until after the vesting of the property and the delivery of possession. In the absence of such a provision it is patent that the claim of the petitioners for payment of interest is unwarranted. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, stresses with some amount of vehemence that on account of the omissions and commissions of the respondent authorities, the petitioners had to suffer a heavy loss in stopping their business in view of the order of acquisition dated May 20, 1976. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners could not stop their business overnight or right on the day on which the authorities may choose to take possession of the property. Be that as it may, even if the petitioner have some claim on account of the alleged loss suffered by them, they have to seek their remedy in a proper forum but certainly not in these proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of this jurisdiction no damages can possibly be assessed as claimed by the petitioners.
4. So far as the second relief of the petitioners is concerned, as already indicated, the respondent authorities have already paid them the amount claimed, that is, Rs. 28,000. They are not entitled to any further amount on that account.
5. As a result of the discussion above, this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.