R.L. JAIN (D) BY LRS. versus DDA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1156 · Decided: 12-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU, AR. LAKSHMANAN, G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
R.L. JAIN (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
DDA AND ORS. 
MARCH 12, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN 
AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act-Ss. 4, 6, 16, 17, 23, 28, 34 and 48: 
Acquisition proceeding in respect of a large area of land including 
disputed plot-The plot purchased by the claimant in an auction sale from the 
Government with stipulation that it was outside the purview of acquisition-
Government transferred possession of the plot to Delhi Development Authority--
Land Acquisition Collector determining compensation-Acceptance thereof 
D by the owner/claimant-Suit for declaring the acquisition proceedings illegal-
Decreed by trial Court declaring the proceedings null and void-Appeal 
dismissed by Appellate Court-Suit for injunct{on restraining DDAfrom raising 
construction on the plot and possession-Decreed by trial Court-Appeal 
dismissed by Appellate Court-High Court dismissed second appeal-Issuance 
of fresh notification and declaration by the .Government and raising of 
E construction by DDA-Challenge to-High Court directing payment of 
compensation but denied demolition of construction-Award made by Collector 
determining compensation, solatium and interest-Challenge to-Affirmed by 
High Court except interest-On appeal, Held: Publication of notification sine 
qua non for any land acquisition proceeding-Taking over possession prior 
F to "'issuance of notification neither contemplated nor recognized -Thus, f!larket 
value of the land/compensationlsolatium could be determined as on the date 
of publication of notification-Since earlier proceeding declared null and 
void, claimant not entitled to compensation or interest thereto for anterior 
period-Acquisition proceedings could not be rendered invalid merely on the 
ground that the plot was stated to be kept outside the purview of the notification. 
G 
Dispossession prior to issuance of notification-Relief-Held: Collector 
may determine rent/damages and interest thereon in lieu of use of the property 
to which landowner is entitled. 
Words and Phrases: 'Acquisition' and 'taking possession '-Meaning of 
H 
1156 
· 
-
,. 
_...._ 
I , .. . 
-
-
" 
R.L. JAIN v. DDA 
1157 
in the context of Land A<;quisition Act. 
The issue wliich arose for consideration in the appeal was as to 
whether in a case of land acquisition where possession was taken before 
the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
A 
the claimant (owner of the land) is entitled to interest for such anterior 
period in acl'.ordance with Section 34 of the Act. In view of the conflict of B 
opinion on the issue in two decisions of this Court in Shri Vijay Cotton and 
Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat, [1991) 1 SCC 262 and Union of India v. Budh 
Singh and Ors., (1995) 9 SCC 233, the present Bench has referred the 
matter to a larger Bench and has thus come up before the three Judges 
Bench. 
It was contended by the appellant that since the earlier suit was 
decreed by the trial Court holding the notification null and void and 
acquisition proceedings illegal, the earlier notification became non est in 
the eye of law; that since possession of the plot had been taken over by 
c 
the Government before issuance of fresh notification, the appellant was D 
entitled to interest from the date of taking possession and that the view 
taken by this Court in the case of Shri Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills v. State 
of Gujarat is legally correct and equitable view, and therefore applying 
the ratio of the case, the award made by the Collector wherein interest 
for the anterior period had been awarded, was perfectly correct. 
On behalf of the respondent-Union of India, it was submitted that 
since the acquisition proceeding could commence only after publication 
of the notification, market value of the land has to be determined from 
E 
the date of its issuance; that Sections 28 and 34 of the Act nowhere 
contemplate payment of compensation for any anterior period; and that F 
the view taken by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Budh Singh 
and Ors., (1995) 9 SCC represents the correct legal position. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act does not G 
contemplate taking over possession of the land 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 de hors the Act. It is for this reason that 
both Sections 11(1) and 23(1) enjoin the determi

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