Land acquisition claimants are entitled to 15% additional interest on market value from dispossession until Section 4 notification.

The appeal arose from the judgment and decree dated 26 February 2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur, in L.A. Misc. Case No. 09 of 2009 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arising from L.A. Case No. 03/2005–06.

The Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land at ₹55,069 per decimal, awarded 30% solatium, and granted compensation and interest for the period between the State’s taking possession and the subsequent acquisition proceedings.

The Reference Court directed payment of, inter alia, 12% per annum on the relevant requisition compensation from 5 December 1979 to 2 November 2004, together with statutory interest on the enhanced compensation.

During pendency of the appeal, the claimant initiated Money Execution Case No. 12 of 2021.

The State sought stay of execution, and this Court directed deposit of the decretal amount, which was subsequently deposited with the Registrar General.

The claimant relied on the co-ordinate Division Bench decision in Land Acquisition Collector v. Akshay Kumar Khamrai , 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4141, concerning an adjacent parcel acquired under the same acquisition proceedings.

The State conceded that the cited decision related to the same acquisition proceeding and cluster of land and accepted that it was binding on the present Court.

1. Whether the determination of the market value of the acquired land at ₹55,069 per decimal required interference in the appeal, in view of the binding co-ordinate Bench decision concerning an adjacent parcel from the same acquisition proceeding?

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to additional interest at 15% per annum on the market value from the date of dispossession, 5 November 1979, until the date of publication of the Section 4 notification, 2 November 2004, instead of the 12% amount directed by the Reference Court?

3. What consequential directions should be issued regarding payment of the balance decretal amount, release of the deposited sum, and interest for delayed payment?

The Court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly the scheme governing compensation under Sections 4 and 18 and the principles relating to compensation and interest where possession precedes the formal acquisition notification.

Relying on R.L. Jain v. DDA , (2004) 4 SCC 7, Balwan Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector , (2016) 13 SCC 412, and Madi Shetti Bala Ramul (Dead) v. Land Acquisition Officer , (2007) 9 SCC 650, the Court held that a claimant may receive additional interest at 15% per annum on the market value for the period between dispossession and the publication of the Section 4 notification.

The Court also followed the binding co-ordinate Bench decision in Land Acquisition Collector v. Akshay Kumar Khamrai , 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4141, which had affirmed the relevant market-value determination and applied the 15% additional-interest principle.

The Court found that Akshay Kumar Khamrai concerned an adjacent parcel from the same acquisition proceeding and cluster of land.

Since the State itself accepted the factual similarity and the binding effect of that co-ordinate Bench decision, the Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the market value of ₹55,069 per decimal fixed by the Reference Court.

However, the Reference Court’s award of 12% for the period between dispossession and notification required modification.

Applying the principles recognised in R.L. Jain , Balwan Singh , and Madi Shetti Bala Ramul , the Court substituted an award of additional interest at 15% per annum on the market value from 5 November 1979, when possession was taken, until 2 November 2004, the date preceding publication of the Section 4 notification.

The remaining directions of the Reference Court were left undisturbed.

The claimant was held entitled to compensation based on the market value of ₹55,069 per decimal and to additional interest at 15% per annum on that market value from 5 November 1979 to 2 November 2004.

The other directions in the Reference Court’s judgment and decree remained unaltered.

The State was directed to pay the balance amount with interest within three months.

The Registrar General was directed to release the deposited amount, together with accrued interest and after deduction of any applicable commission, within a fortnight.

Any delay in payment would attract additional penal interest at 10% per annum until realisation.

CAN 4 of 2025 was disposed of, and the department was directed to draw up the decree accordingly.