TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Kakatiya canal. A draft notification was published in the District Gazette under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 4 acres 10 guntas of the land in Survey No. 622 on 16.03.1979. Possession of the said land was taken over on 18.05.1979. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.06.1988 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ ₹ 75,000/- per acre. The said award, however, was confined to 1 acre 5 guntas only as the balance 3 acres 5 guntas of land was held to be belonging to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A writ petition filed there against, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 10387 of 1989, was allowed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a judgment and order dated 17.11.1989 directing the Collector to refer the dispute to the Court in terms of Section 30 of the Act. However, later on, it was found by the respondent that the entire 4 acres 10 guntas of land belonged to the appellants. 4. The Parliament enacted the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 which came into effect on or about 24.09.1986. As in terms of the said amendment, an award was to be passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of the award whichever is earlier, Appellants became entitled thereto with effect from 18.05.1979. 7. It was contended that possession having been taken in terms of the provisions of the Act, and furthermore having regard to the fact that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a direction in that behalf in its judgment dated 28.12.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 16220 of 1994 and the Land Acquisition Officer having granted the same, amount could not have been reduced in view of Section 25 of the Act. 8. Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no compensation is payable for taking possession of the land de'hors a valid notification under the Act. 9. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether Section 25 of the Act will have any application in the fact of the present case. Two notifications were issued separately. The second notification was issued as the first notification did not survive. Valuation of the market rate for the acquired land, thus, was required to be determined on the basis of the notification dated 23.12.1991. The earlier notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r publication of notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. Even here in view of Sub-section (3-A) the Collector has to tender 80 per cent of the estimated amount of compensation to the persons interested/entitled thereto before taking over possession. The scheme of the Act does not contemplate taking over of possession prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and if possession is taken prior to the said notification it will be dehors the Act. It is for this reason that both Sections 11(1) and 23(1) enjoin the determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act.... It was furthermore held: 12. The expression the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited should not be read in isolation divorced from its context. The words such compensation and so taking possession are important and have to be given meaning in the ligh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The provisions 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. 13. Yet again in Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (Dead) Through L.R. Tapas Chandra Roy etc. v. State of West Bengal etc. AIR2004SC288 , this Court held: 19. Even though the authority in Shree Vijay Cotton Oil Mills Ltd. appears to support the claimants, it is to be seen that apart from mentioning Sections 28 and 34, no reasons have been given to justify the award of interest from a date prior to commencement of acquisition proceedings. A plain reading of Section 34 shows that interest is payable only if the compensation, which is payable, is not paid or deposited before taking possession. The question of payment or deposit of compensation will not arise if there is no acquisition proceeding. In case where possession is taken prior to acquisition proceedings a party may have a right to claim compensation or interest. But such a claim would not be either under Section 34 or Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1984, thus, merely lays down that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector, and in no circumstances the amount awarded by the Collector can be reduced. What is an award is a total sum and not the ingredients contained therein. An award made by the Collector is in the form of an offer. It is in that sense only that the amount contained therein cannot be reduced. 18. It is not the case of the appellants that the total amount of compensation stands reduced. If it had not been, we fail to understand as to how Section 25 will have any application in the instant case. Furthermore, Section 25 being a substantive provision will have no retrospective effect. The original award was passed on 08.02.1981, Section 25, as it stands now, may, therefore, not have any application in the instant case. 19. In Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. v. B.V. Reddy and Sons [2002]1SCR1041 , this Court opined that Section 25 being not a procedural provision will have no retrospective effect, holding: 6. Coming to the second question, it is a well- settled principle of construction that a substantiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
