EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR CANAL versus VILAS EKNATH JADHAV AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 02-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 493 
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR 
CANAL 
v. 
VILAS EKNATH JADHAV AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2919 of 2013 etc.) 
APRIL 02, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
Dispossession of land owner prior to notification u/s 4(1) 
A 
B 
c 
- Damages - Held: In case the land owner has been 
dispossessed prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
Notification uls 4(1) of the Act, it will be open to such land 
D 
owner to recover the possession of his land by taking 
appropriate legal proceeding - In case the possession is not 
recovered, he would be entitled to rent or damages for use 
and occupation for the period Government retained 
possession of the properly. 
R.L. Jain (DJ by LRs. versus D.D.A. and Others 2004(2) 
SCR 1156 =AIR 2004 SC 1904 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (2) SCR 1156 
relied on 
para 1 
CIVIi APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2919 
of 2013. 
E 
·F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2009 of the 
G 
High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in 
Writ Petition No. 2458 of 2009. 
WITH 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A C.A. No. 2920 of 2013. 
Babu Marlapalle, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari for the 
Appellant. 
B 
Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair for the 
Respondents. 
c 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. In spite of service, none has appeared on behalf of 
respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the persons whose land was acquired. 
Mr. Babu Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
D appellant submits that the judgment of the High Court is contrary 
to the law laid down by this Court in R.L Jain(D) by LRs. 
versus D.D.A. and Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1904. He 
submits that the appellant had taken possession of the land of 
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 3.6.2001 whereas the Notification 
E under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 30th December, 2006. 
Undoubtedly, the aforesaid respondents would have been 
entitled to interest on the statutory benefits under the Act 
calculated from the date when the Notification under Section 4 
F of the Act was issued. However, for the period between 
3.6.2001 and 30.12.2006, they would only be entitled to rental 
compensation. On the rental compensation determined by the 
Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents would also be 
entitled to the interest at Bank rate. In support of this, he relies 
G on observations made in paragraph 18 of the judgment in R.L. 
Jain(D) supra. In the aforesaid paragraph, this Court has 
observed as follows :-
"18.ln a case where the land owner is dispossessed 
prior to the issuance of preliminary Notification under 
H 
Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes 
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR 
495 
CANAL v. VILAS EKNATH JADHAV 
possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest 
A 
with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to 
recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate 
legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent 
or damages for use and occupation for the period the 
Government retains possession of the property. Where s 
possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
Notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that 
the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for 
use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while 
determining the compensation amount payable to the land c 
owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of 
S.48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. 
For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest 
at prevailing bank rate may be awarded." 
3. The aforesaid observations make it abundantly clear that . D 
in case the land owner has been dispossessed prior to the 
issuance of the preliminary Notification under Section 4(1} of 
the Act, it will be open to such land owner to recover the 
possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceeding. 
In case the possession is not recovered, he would be entitled 
E 
to rent or damages for use and occupation for the period 
Government retained possession of the property. 
4. These observations fully support the submissions made 
by learned senior counsel for the appellant. 
F 
5. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The 
judgment and order of the High Court is modified to that extent.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.