Prakash Krishna - (1.) -The only point mooted in the present appeal is whether a land owner is entitled to get interest from the date of possession of the land acquired by the State Government where possession was taken by the Stale Government even before the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows : Chak No. 433 area 260 links situate in Village Katghar Lalganj, Tappa Haveli, Pergana Deogaon, Tahsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh was acquired by the State Government for construction of Tikargarh Minor Canal Division 23. THE notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 15.9.1984 and the notification under Section 6 (1) is dated 29th of September, 1986. THE Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 23rd of September, 1986 determined the prevailing market value of the land acquired on the relevant date, i.e., the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. THE appellants herein were not satisfied with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the matter was referred to the civil court for determining the market value. THE Vth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in L.A.R. No. 12 of 1988 found that the claimant-appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per acre, solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and the interest at the rate of 9 per cent by the award dated 16.5.1989. A review application No. 29 of 1989 was filed by the claimant appellants for reviewing the aforesaid order on the ground that they are also entitled to 12 per cent additional compensation on the amount of compensation and the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and thereafter 15 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation or apart thereof which has not been paid or deposited in accordance with the Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE said review application has been allowed by the order under appeal on the ground that the claimant appellants are entitled to 12 per cent additional compensation and interest at the rate they claimed from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Still being not satisfied the above appeal is at the instance of the claimant appellants. Shri J. A. Kazami, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants in support of the appeal submits only one point. The argument is that the possession of the land in question was taken by the State Government in the year 1977, i.e., before the commencement of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the interest on the compensation amount should be granted to him from the date of taking actual possession, i.e., the year 1977. The learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that claimant appellants are entitled to get interest as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. On a true and proper construction of the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act the claimant appellant cannot get interest amount from the date of taking possession if the possession was taken prior to the initiation of land acquisition proceedings. Considered the respective submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The point involved in the above appeal is no longer res integra and has been set at rest by various judgments of the Apex Court, referred by the learned standing counsel.
(3.) IN Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 SCC 142 : 2002 (1) AWC 106 (SC), it has been held that the land owner is entitled to additional compensation from the date of notification up to the date of award even if possession of the land was taken prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. INterpreting Section 23 (1A) it was held that starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The terminal point for the purpose is either date of award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. IN that case possession of the land was taken prior to the publication of Section 4 notification. It was held that, that terminal was not available and the only terminal that was available was the date of award. In R. L. Jain v. D.D.A. and others, (2004) 4 SCC 79 : 2004 (2) AWC 1342 (SC), the question involved in the present appeal directly came up for consideration therein. The possession was taken before notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Apex Court after considering the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act held that taking possession before notification without authority cannot be recognised for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that there are only two Sections in the Act which specifically deals with the subject of taking possession of the acquired land. It distinguished its earlier judgment delivered in Shri Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262 and held as follows : "In case the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the properly. The provision of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded." ;