Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ASTEKAAR NAGANAATHA RAO & ORS.ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LANDACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 160 JT 1996 (1) 108
1996 SCALE (1)116
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1626 OF 1996
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.6975 of 1992]
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Around 300 acres of agricultural land situated in
Sambre [Belgaum Airport], Balekundri, Mutage were
requisitioned in 1942, possession thereof was taken in 1942
and the court below had put the date on December 31,1942,
for the defence purposes, viz., establishment of Air Force
Station. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"] acquiring these
lands was published on February 24,1983. The Land
Acquisition Officer [LAO] determined the compensation @
Rs.6,000/-per acre. On reference, the civil Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs.70,400/- per acre adopting the method
of hypothetical lay-out. The High Court in the impugned
judgment made in MFA Nos.1821/89 & batch remanded the
matters without upholding the hypothetical lay-out giving
reasons in support thereof. [When the lands are frozen for
open sale the hypothetical lay-out is an artificial
embellishment to award higher compensation]. The question
would arise: Whether the lands other than the acquired land,
were available for sale in the open market. In 1942, when
possession was taken as agricultural land for air field, the
lands could not have been sold in 1942 for building purposes
as hypothetical for lay-out. The High Court was, therefore,
right in rejecting the application of principle of
hypothetical lay-out which is but a figment.
In view of the fact that cases are pending for a long
time, we have suggested to the counsel for the Union of
Inidia as well as for the claimants to have a negotiation
for settlement of the amount. We are informed that pursuant
to directions of this Court the parties have settled the
amount at Rs.45,000/- per acre with solatium at 30% and also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
entitlement of additional amount at 12% per annum under
Section 23[1-A] of the Act, payable from the date of taking
possession. The only point on which the parties could not
reach a consensus is the entitlement to payment of interest.
It is contended by Shri Javali, the learned senior counsel
that from 1942 no amount as rent has been paid and now
stated to have been paid partly a sum for 1975-76 to 1982
and it cannot be considered to be lease amount. In view of
the settlement by the parties that the compensation payable
to the appellants is Rs.45,000/- per acre, the question of
determination of the compensation does not arise.
Consequently, they are also entitled to the compensation at
that rate and solatium at 30% and also additional amount at
12% under Section 23[1-A] of the Act, as agreed upon by the
parties, from the date of taking possession which the Court
has fixed, viz., December 31,1942. In other words, the
claimants would be entitled to the additional amount from
January 1,1943 till the date of publication of notification
under Section 4[1]. The question that arises for
consideration is from what date the appellants are entitled
to interest. The additional affidavit filed in this Court
would show that the Tehsildar had directed the Union of
India payment of rent to the owners of the land and to send
the same for the period from 1975-76 to 1981-82. In other
words, upto December 31,1982, he directed a sum of
Rs.2,60,683.98 to be sent. Accordingly, a demand draft dated
January 2,1984 was sent to the Tehsildar. For the earlier
period, no record was available in their office. Therefore,
no direction for payment for the said period was given. We
agree that it would be difficult to decide whether payment
of rent was paid for the earlier period. It would appear
that the Tehsildar deducted Rs.1,99,815.07 towards land
revenue and a sum of Rs.46,174.05 was paid to the claimants
towards rent. That appropriation appears to be obviously
incorrect. They could not deduct the land revenue from the
amount payable to the appellants as rent. Consequently, the
respondents are liable to pay the rent payable to the tune
of Rs.2,60,683.98 for the above period. The Tehsildar shall
accordingly make over the payment. Out of total amount, it
is an admitted case that Rs.46,17,405/- has already been
paid to the respective persons. Giving credit to the amount
already received, the balance amount shall be paid to the
land owners.
Since notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition was published on February 24, 1983, the
appellants are entitled to interest @ 9% for one year from
that date and on expiry thereof, they are entitled to the
payment of 15% from 25th February 1984 till the date of
deposit.
The appeals, accordingly, are allowed as indicated
above. No costs. The respondent are directed to pay the
amount within a period of six months from the date of the
receipt of this Order.