9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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, another notification was issued by the Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 notification lost its force. If the notification issued on 16.03.1979 is taken into consideration for all purposes, the subsequent award ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt 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 light of other provisions of the Act. Such compensation would mean the compensation determined in accordance with other provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 11 and 15 of the Act which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se 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 Section 28. In our view interest under these Sections can only start running from the date the compensation is payable. Normally this would be from the date of the Award. Of course, there may be cases under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 substantive provision cannot be retrospective in nature unless the provision itself indicates the same. The amended provision of Section 25 nowhere indicates that the same would have any retrospective effect. Consequently, therefore, it would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
