TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the erstwhile owner is only illegal or unlawful possession which does not bind the Government nor vested under Section 16 divested in the illegal occupant. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the award. Delay in making the first award is compensated by award of additional amount under Section 23(1A) and interest under Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 which has taken care to set off the delay in making the award. Under these circumstances, the respondents are adequately compensated for loss, if any, for denial of enjoying the lands from the date of taking possession till date of deposit. The appeals are allowed accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . vs. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc., (JT 1995 (8) SC 1), on 1st November, 1995, the judgment of the Division Bench can no longer be sustained. Shri S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Government having excluded the lands in survey Nos. 197/2 etc. (which is marked `A' in the plan submitted by the respondents) and the lands covered in Survey No. 95/1 to an extent of one acre and four cents marked as `B' in the same plan, the respondents are also entitled to the exclusion of their land and the non-exclusion thereof amounts to invidious discrimination. It is also further contended that in the year 1976-1980 three G.Os., viz., MS No.837 Housing dated June 15, 1976, MS No.413 Housing & U.D. dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they should be compensated considerably by awarding interest thereunder. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants resisted these contentions. Having considered the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties, we see no force in any of the contention raised by Shri Sivasubramaniam. It is true that the lands marked `A' and `B' as per the respondents' plan appear to have been excluded. It would appear that as regards the land marked `A', there is a litigation pending. As regards the land marked `B', it appears to be far interior and we do not have any material, on the basis of which exemption came to be made. It is difficult for us to go into the validity or the purpose. The circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, we do not find any justification to direct the government for exclusion of the lands on the above grounds. It is true that the Government having realized that the lands were initially notified to be acquired but did not cover the survey Nos. being situated in the adjacent villages, the errata notification was published and included to lands in Survey Nos.2/5, 2/11 and 2/12. Once errata was published, it dates back to the date of initial Section 4(1) notification, namely, June 26, 1978. It cannot be considered to be a fresh notification issued under Section 4(1). It is not in dispute that the respondents, in fact, filed their objections to the notice issued under Section 5A and Rule 3 of the Rules made by the State Government. Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... protest, it binds such party but subject to Section 28A. Possession of the acquired land would be taken only by way of a memorandum, Panchanama, which is a legally accepted norm. It would not be possible to take any physical possession. Therefore, subsequent continuation, if any, had by the erstwhile owner is only illegal or unlawful possession which does not bind the Government nor vested under Section 16 divested in the illegal occupant. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the award. Delay in making the first award is compensated by award of additional amount under Section 23(1A) and interest under Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 which has taken care to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|