Land Acquisition Collector and Another vs Narda Devi and Another

Dev Darshan Sood, J.—The State challenges the award passed by the learned District Judge, Solan on remand by this Court vide its order dated 3.12.2009. RFA No. 238 of 2001 was preferred by the State against this very award which was disposed of by this Court on 3.12.2009 with the following directions:-

3.12.2009...

The only point urged in this petition by the State is that the Reference Court has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of possession till the expiry of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum. The admitted case of the parties is that notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 22.10.1981 although possession of the land was taken somewhere in the year 1968.

In L.A.C. and Avinder Singh and anothers, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1891, I have held following the law laid down by the Supreme Court that no interest can be awarded from the date of possession but only from the date of notification. The award of the learned Reference Court is modified accordingly.

In Avinder Singh''s case, this Court, following the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court had held that interest can be awarded only from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and not from the date of taking possession. At the same time, this Court held that it was open to the claimants/respondents to establish their claim for compensation/damages/use and occupation charges for the land which had not been acquired to put to use by the State.

This appeal is accordingly accepted and the following directions are issued:

(i) the appeals are remanded to the Reference Court, i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Solan.

(ii) On remand, the Reference Court will redetermine the compensation in accordance with the decision in Narotam Ram and etc. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Others, Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr, and R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA and Others, and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Hemanagouda and others (2005)12 SCC 443.

(iii) The claimants will be at liberty to establish their claim for reimbursement of money/compensation for use of their property by the State without to proceedings under the Act. For this purpose the claimants as well as the State would be free to adduce evidence in accordance with law. It is clarified that no other evidence except that which is for determination of compensation for use of the land and deprivation of its use by the claimants by the State prior to notification u/s 4 of the Act will be allowed.

Since the dates of taking possession and notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act have already been taken note of and the issue has already been decided in the reference petition, no further evidence shall be required to establish these dates.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Solan on 21st of December, 2009. He shall dispose of the case not later than 6 months from the date on which the parties first appear before him. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to send the records of the case to the learned District Judge, Solan, forthwith...

Pursuant thereto, the learned District Judge has proceeded to assess the compensation for use and occupation charges for the land of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per bigha per annum. Compensation amount for use and occupation was determined from the date of possession i.e. 18.12.1968 till the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 22.10.1981. Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on this compensation has been awarded.

I have heard learned Additional Advocate General and Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

Submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General is that the determination is not in accordance with law and the amount awarded is excessive. I find from the award that the learned District Judge has provided an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the question of use and occupation charges of the acquired land prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The amount awarded is extremely frugal and does not call for any intervention of this Court. The award cannot be described as excessive as the same is squarely based on the evidence as led by the parties before the learned District Judge. It is but trite that the property of an individual cannot be utilized by the State gratis as it violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The award amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the bank accounts of the claimants-respondents on or after 1st November, 2013. Of course, needless to say that if any interim order is passed by the Supreme Court, the disbursement of the award shall be made accordingly.