LexMADISHETTI BALA RAMUL (D) BY LRS. versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MADISHETTI BALA RAMUL (D) BY LRS. v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MAY 17,2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TIU, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 23 and 34-Compensatio"n-Additional market value-Grant of- C Notification published on l 6-3-1979 for_ acquisition of land-Possession taken on 18-5-1979-However, notification not given effect-Another notification published on 23-12-1991-Award by Land Acquisition Officer- All statutory benefits granted except additional market value-Reference Court awarded compensation, also granted additional market value and D interest w.ej 18-5-1979-However, High Court granted additional market value and interest w.ej 23-12-1991-Held: High Court may be correct in its · interpretation, but same would not mean that Appellants-land owners would not get anything for being out of possession from I 979 to I 99 I-In interest of justice, Appellants granted additional interest @ l 5% p.a. on the amount awarded for the period 16-3-1979 to 22-12-1991. E s.25-Applicability of-Discussed. Notification was published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 16-03-1979 for acquisition of 4 acres 10 guntas of land. Possession of the said land was taken over on 18-05-1979. Respondent-Land Acquisition F Officer passed award, which however, was confined to 1 acre? guntas only as the balance 3 acres 5 guntas of land was held to be belonging to the State Government. However, later on, it was found by the Respondent that the entire 4 acres 10 guntas of land belonged to the Appellants .. G In respect of the said 3 acres 5 guntas of land, another notification was issued on 23-12-1991 for which another award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer with all the statutory benefits except additional market value. Appellants approached the Reference Court in terms of Section 18 of the Act which vide its judgment dated 2-1-1999 awarded compensation and also granted additional market value and interest from the date of taking H 222 MADISHEITI BALA RAMUL (D) BY LRS. ,._ LAND ACQUISmON OFFICER 223 possession till the date of award. High Court however held that Appellants A __,,,, are not entitled to additional market value and interest from the date of taking of the possession till the date of the award. In appeal to this Court it is contended that the Appellants were entitled to grant of additional market value with effect from the date of taking B possession i.e. 18-5-1979. A further question arose as to whether Section 25 of the Act had any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case . ... Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Two notifications were issued separately. The second c 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 dated 16.03.1979 lost its force. As the said market value has been determined having regard to the notification issued on 23.12.1991, possession taken over by D Respondent in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land, pursuant to the said notification dated 16.03.1979 was in the eye of law, therefore, illegal. The " High Court evidently directed grant of additional market value@ 12% per .... annum on the enhanced market value from the date of the publication of the notification dated 23.12.1991 as also interest thereupon from the said date instead and place of the date of taking possession i.e. 18.05.1979. This Court E generally agrees therewith. The findings of the High Court cannot be faulted in strict sense of the law. [Paras 9 and 10) (227-B-E] 1.2. However, Appellants were dispossessed pursuant to a notification which for one reason or other could not be given effect to. The Land F' Acquisition Officer took possession of the land on the basis ofa notification -/._ which did not survive. Respo~dent could not have continued to hold possession of land despite abatement of the proceeding under the Act. The State itself realized that its stand in regard to the ownership of 3 acres and 5 guntas of land was not correct. It, therefore, had to issue another notification having regard to the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, G 1984. Whereas the High Court may be correct in its interpretation, but the same would not mean that Appellants would not get anything for being out of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.