The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on the timing of possession and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

1. In Land Acquisition Case No. 37 of 1997, the Reference Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has held on 30-9-2000 that the respondent-claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare for the land acquired, and Rs. 10,000/- for well. The Reference Court has further directed that the claimant should be paid additional component on the amount of enhanced compensation at the rate of twelve per centum per annum from the date of the possession, i.e. from July, 1985, till the date of the award, i.e. 16-9-1995. The learned Single Judge (Shri Z.A. Haq, J.) has rejected all the challenges to the determination of market rate and to the award of compensation for the well.

2. This reference to a Larger Bench is concerned with the direction of the Reference Court to the appellant-State to pay to the respondent-claimant an interest at the rate of nine per centum per annum on the amount of enhanced compensation of the land, for the first year from July, 1985 to June, 1986, and thereafter, at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum from July, 1986 till the date of its realization.

3. The undisputed factual position is that the possession of the land under acquisition was taken by the Government in the month of July, 1985 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16-9-1993. The award was passed on 19-9-1995. Thus, the actual physical possession of the land under acquisition is prior in point of time and it is followed by a notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6, and the award under Section 11 of the said Act.

4. The Division Bench of this Court (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik & Shri Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) has held in the case of Lalitkumar Himmatlal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2012 (4) Mh. L.J. 742, after following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) By LRs. vs. DDA and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 79, that the interest under Section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be payable from the date of the award, if the possession of the land acquired was taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. This decision was relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant-State to urge that the direction issued by the Reference Court in the present case to pay the interest at the rate of nine and fifteen per centum per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land in the month of July, 1985, is contrary to the law laid down by this Court.

5. The learned Single Judge (Shri Z.A. Haq, J.) has expressed in his judgment dated 28-1-2015 and 10-2-2015 that the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Lalitkumar Shah's case, cited supra, requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Bhaskar Namdeo Wagh and Others, 2009 (1) Mh. L.J. 299, and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Others, (2010) 5 SCC 708, which were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, referred the following questions of law for determination by the Larger Bench:

“If the possession is taken before notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is published and/or before the award is passed, whether the landowner would be entitled for interest as per Section 34 of the Act of 1894 from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 or from the date of passing of the award?”

In order to decide this reference, the entire scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) will have to be seen.

6. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code as has been rightly urged by Smt. Bharti Dangre, the learned Government Pleader, making the provisions for