2007 (5) TMI 667 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to additional market value and interest from the date of taking possession till the date of the award.
2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Legality of possession taken prior to the issuance of a valid notification.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Additional Market Value and Interest
The appeal was directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that the appellants were not entitled to additional market value and interest from the date of taking possession till the date of the award. The appellants argued that they were entitled to additional market value u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act from 18.05.1979. However, the High Court determined that the appellants were only entitled to additional market value and interest from the date of the second notification (23.12.1991) and not from the date of the first notification (16.03.1979), as the first notification did not survive legally.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The appellants contended that u/s 25 of the Act, the amount of compensation awarded by the court should not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector. The court clarified that Section 25 merely prohibits the reduction of the total amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and does not apply to the individual components of the award. Since the total amount of compensation was not reduced, Section 25 was deemed inapplicable in this case.

Issue 3: Legality of Possession Taken Prior to the Issuance of a Valid Notification
The court examined whether possession taken prior to a valid notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was lawful. It was held that possession must be obtained under a valid notification, and any possession taken prior to such notification is illegal. The court referenced previous judgments, including R.L. Jain (D) By L.Rs. v. DDA and Ors. and Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (Dead) Through L.R. Tapas Chandra Roy etc. v. State of West Bengal etc., which supported the view that possession taken without a valid notification is dehors the Act and cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court generally agreed with the High Court's findings but acknowledged that the appellants should be compensated for being out of possession from 1979 to 1991. The court directed that additional interest @ 15% per annum on the amount awarded in the 1999 award for the period from 16.03.1979 till 22.12.1991 should be granted to meet the ends of justice. The appeal was allowed in part, and no costs were awarded to the appellants.