The Collector of Kamrup vs Harendra Nath Phukan

S.N. Phukan, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the learned land acquisition Judge, Guwahati in Misc. (Ref) case No. 41/78. The said award was made by the learned Judge on 20-5-81. This appeal is by the Collector.

The claimant before the land acquisition Judge, who is the Respondent herein was the owner of 1 katha 13 lechas of land at Bamunlmaidan, Guwahati. It is not disputed that the State government took possession of the land in 1959 without any formal order or notification under any law. Mr. Singh learned advocate states that it was so taken as the Collector was of the opinion that the land be longed to the State. The Respondent approached this Court and it directed the State to take appropriate action under the law. Accordingly on 21.4.73 notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act, was issued and by the same notification State Government also invoked the powers u/s 17(4) of the Act. On the same day declaration u/s 6 of the Act was also made. The learned Collector made an award on 15.9.78 and the land was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per katha. This value was increased by the impugned judgment by the learned land acquisition Judge to Rs. 15,000/- per katha. The learned land acquisition Judge awarded interest u/s 34 of the Act at the rate of 6% from the time to taking possession which is in 1959 till the date of award which was 15.9.78.

Heard Mr. Singh, learned Govt. advocate and Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the Respondent.

I have perused the impugned judgment and other relevant records and I am satisfied that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per katha as compensation was fair and adequate.

Mr. Singh has raised an important point as to whether the learned land acquisition Judge could award interest from 1959 though notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 21.4.78. According to Mr. Singh the learned lard acquisition Judge erred in law in awarding interest even before the proceeding under the Act was, started. On the other hand Mr. Goswami has drawn my attention to Sections 23(1-A) and 34 of the Act and has urged that as the possession was taken over in 1959 the Respondent is entitled to claim interest under the law.

Under the act only section which provides for payment of Interest is Section 34 of the Act. This section inter alia provides that when the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest at the rate mentioned in the said section from the time of taking over possession Section 16 of the Act enables the Collector to take possession of the land only after an award u/s 11 of the Act is made. How ever in case of urgency, possession can be taken over before such an award is made as provided in Section 17 of the Act. The fact of possession as referred to in Section 34 of the Act has to be understood within the provisions of the Act more particularly Sections 16 and 17. Reading the above sections together is absolutely clear that under the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment made by Act No. 68 of 1984, interest under the Act can be awarded only from the date of taking over possession of the land. Thus the Collector or the Court prior to the above amendment had not power to award interest on the amount awarded before taking over possession.

The present proceeding u/s 18 of the Act before the learned Land Acquisition Judge was u/s 18 of the Act and as such any interest awarded by the Court has to be within the provisions of the Act. In view of the above legal position interest awarded by the learned Court before the Land Acquisition proceeding was started was without any authority of law.

This position has been slightly changed by inserting Sub-section (1-A) to Section 23 of the Act by the amendment made by Act 63 of 1984. This sub-section, inter-alia, provides that interest has to be awarded from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act to the date of the award or date of taking possession of the land. So the present legal position is interest has to be awarded at the rate mentioned in the Act from the date of notification issued u/s 4 of the Act till the amount is paid. The above amendment made by the Act of 1984 is not relevant for the present purpose.

For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the award in respect of interest from 1959 upto 21-4-78 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside, which I hereby do.

As the Respondent was dispossessed from the land in 1959 which was regularize in view of the direction issued by this Court from 21st April, 1978 the Respondent is entitled to get compensation for his dispossession from the land from 1959 to 21-4-78 and for this purpose he has to approach the appropriate forum. In this proceeding he is not entitled to any relief for the aforesaid period.

For the reasons stated above the award is modified to the extend that the Respondent shall get interest from 21-4-78 and not from 1959 at the rate specified in the award.

In the result appeal is partly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.