Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI KISHAN DAS & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 274 1995 SCC (6) 240
JT 1995 (7) 158 1995 SCALE (5)567
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
W I T H
C.M.P. NO.3 910 OF 1986.
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
dated August 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(1) of the
Act, the Government exercised the power under Section 17(4)
of the Act and dispensed with the September 1976. Therefore,
the appellants should be compensated by payment of interest
@ 12 per cent per annum. In support of his contention, he
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ram Chand &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1994) 1 SCC 44] and in
particular on paragraph 16 of the judgment. It is seen that
in Ram Chander’s case even after the dismissal of the writ
petitions by this Court in Aflatoon vs. Lt. Governor of
Delhi [(1975) 4 SCC 285], no action was taken by the Land
Acquisition Officer to pass the award. Thus, till 1980-81 no
award was made in respect of any of the acquisitions. Under
these circumstances, this Court had directed the Government
to pay interest @ 12 per cent on the amount awarded to
compensate the loss caused to the appellants therein. In
this case, it is seen that though the notification was
issued in September 1976, the writ petitions came to be
filed in the High Court immediately thereafter in 1977 in
the High Court and obviously further proceedings were
stayed. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer delayed
the award. After the dismissal of the writ petitions, the
appellants came to this Court and obtained status quo.
Obviously, the Land Acquisition Officer was not in a
position to pass the award immediately. Thereafter, it would
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
appear that he passed the award on March 22, 1983. Section
34 of the Act obligates the State to pay interest from the
date of taking possession under the unamended Act @ 6 per
cent and after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 at different
rates mentioned therein. The liability of the State to pay
interest ceases with the deposit made as per Section 34 of
the Act. Further liability would arise only when the court
on reference under Section 18 enhances the compensation
under Section 28 of the Act. Similarly, in an appeal under
Section 54 of the Act if the appellate court further
increases the compensation, then again similar obligation
under Section 28 arises.
In the light of the operation of the respective
provisions of Sections 34 and 28 of the Act, it would be
difficult to direct payment of interest. In fact, 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. It is stated by the learned counsel
for the respondents that 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 in a sum of
Rs.20,48,615/-. 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, we do not think that it is a case for us
to interfere at this stage.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.