SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 237

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Balwan Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1867-1872 of 2009
Decided on : 09-03-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the land owners are dispossessed before notification u/s 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894, they would be entitled for damages for the period.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) – Land owner dispossessed prior to notification under section 4(1) – Whether owner entitled for interest for the interregnum period – Held owner entitled for damages – Respondents directed to award additional interest by way of damages, at the rate of 15% per annum for the date of dispossession till the date of Notification under Section 4(1). (Para 4)

       (2004) 4 SCC 79; (2007) 9 SCC 650; (2014) 13 SCC 613 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Land owners were dispossessed prior to notification u/s 4(1) of Act 1894. The owners demanded interest for the period.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellants are entitled to damages.

       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. The short issue arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period from the date of dispossession to the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short `the Act'). That issue is no more res integra. In the case of R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 at paragraph 18, this Court has taken the view that the land owner is not entitled to interest under the Act. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retained possession of the property.

2. Noticing the above position, this Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2007) 9 SCC 650, took the view that it may not be proper to remand the matter to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the appellants therein would be entitled for the period during which they remained out of possession and hence, in the interest of justice, this Court directed that additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, shall be paid for the period between the date of dispossession and the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

3. The said view was followed by this Court in the case of Tahera Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 613.

4. Following the above view taken by this Court, these appeals are disposed of directing the respondents to award additional interest by way of damages, at the rate of 15% per annum for the period between 1.7.1984, the date when the appellants were dispossessed till 2.9.1993, the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

5. Needless to say that this compensation will be on the basis of land value fixed by the Reference Court. The amount as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today.

6. The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top