SH. KISHAN DAS AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 12-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SH. KISHAN DAS AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY 
AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 18, 23(1), 28, 34 and 54. 
C 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Interest-Liability of State to pay--
Litigation by land-owners-Delay in passi1Jg the compensation award-Com-
pensation amount deposited as soon as award was passed-Held there was 
no liability to pay interest. 
In proceedings initiated for acquisition of land belongipg to the 
D appellants, a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 was published on September 29, 1976 while the declaration under 
section 6 was published on September 30, 1976. While issuing notification 
under section 4(1), the Government exercised its power under section 17(4) 
and dispensed with the enquiry under section 5-A and consequently took 
E 
F 
G 
possession of the land on December 16, 1976. Immediately afte~ issue of 
the notification in september, 1976, the appellants filed petitions in the 
High Court as a result of which further proceedings were stayed. Further, 
after the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court the appellants 
obtained status quo from this Court. Consequently, the Land Acquisition 
Officer was not in a position to pass the award. · 
In appeal to this Court it was· contended for the appellant that in 
view of the fact that the award was made on March 22, 1983 though the 
acquisition was made in September, 1976 the appellants should be com-
pensated by payment of interest @ 12 per cent per annum. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The liability of the State to pay interest ceases with the 
deposit made as per Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Further 
liability would arise only when the court on reference under Section 18 
H enhanced the compensation under Section 28 of the Act. Similarly, in an 
584 
; 
K. DAS v. STATE 
585 
appeal under Section 54 of the Act if the appellate court further increases A 
the compensation, then again similar obligation under Section 28 arises. 
In the light of the operation of the respective provisions of Section 34 and 
28 of the Act, it would be difficult to direct payment of interest. [587-A-B] 
1.2. Section 23(1-A) is a set off for loss in cases of delayed awards 
to compensate the person entitled to receive compensation; otherwise a 
person who is responsible for the delay in disposal of the acquisition 
proceedings will be paid premium for dilatory tactics. In this case the 
amount of interest was also calculated and total amount was deposited in 
the account of the appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer after passing 
the award i.e. on November 15, 1976. Under these circumstances, the 
liability to pay interest would arise when possession of the acquired land 
was taken and the amount was not deposited. In view of the fact that 
compensation was deposited as soon as the award was passed, it is not a 
case for interference at this stage. [587-C-D] 
B 
c 
Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 44, D 
distinguished. 
Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, [1975] 4 SCC 285, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 733 of E 
1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30-8-79 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W. No. 35 of 1977. 
S.B. Sanyal and P.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
R.C. Verma for A.K Srivastava and Ravindra Bana for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated August G 
30, 1979 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W. 
No. 35/1977. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 [for short, 'the Act'] was published in the gazette on September 29, 
1976. Declaration under Section 6 was made on September 30, 1976. While 
issuing the notification under Section 4 (l) of the Act, the Government H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A exercised the power under Section 17 ( 4) of the Act and dispensed with 
the enquiry under Sectfon 5-A. Consequently, notice under Settion 4 (1) 
of the Act was served on November 15, 1976 and possession of the land 
was taken on December 16, 1976. 
B 
c 
D 
The appellant had challenged the exercise of the power of the 
Government under Section_ 17( 4) contending that there is no such urgency 
as is warranted to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and the 
exercise of power under Sect

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