Special Tahsildar (La), P.W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada Vs. M.A. Jabbar  INSC 36 (11 January 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Manohar Sujata V. (J)
1995 AIR 762 1995 SCC (2) 142 JT 1995 (1) 383 1995 SCALE (1)144
short point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the
claimant-respondent in C.A. No.1891/89 would be entitled to the additional
amount in terms of s.23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (for short 'the
Act)' from the date of taking possession, namely, February 15, 1965.
Indisputably, facts are that the notification under s.4(1) of the Act was
published on March 6,
possession of the land was taken on February 15, 1965. The award under s. 11 was made by
the Collector on September
30, 1983. The High
Court of A.P. in A.S. No.95 of 1987 while determining the compensation at Rs.
120/- per sq. yard awarded solatium @ 30% on enhanced compensation.
additional amount @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of the
notification from March 6, 1983 till the date of the award, namely, September
30, 1983 and interest @ 9% after taking possession from 15.2.1965 till
14.2.1966 and thereafter @ 15% till the date of payment.
court while granting leave confined the question of entitlement of the benefits
under Amending Act 68/1984. In view of the fact that the award itself was made
after the Amending Act came into force, the claimant entitled to the benefits
under sub-s.(2) of s.23, solatium on the enhanced market value at 30% and also
interest under s.28. The only area of dispute is whether the claimant is
entitled to additional amount under s.23(IA), and if so from what date.
contended for the State that since possession had already been taken prior to
the Amending Act 68 of 1984 has come into force, the claimant is not entitled
to the additional amount. On the other hand it is contended for the claimant
that since possession was already taken and the owner was deprived of the
enjoyment of the land, additional amount should be paid from the date of taking
possession since it was stated under s.23(IA) that the amount shall be payable
from the date of the award or taking possession, whichever is earlier. Since
possession was taken earlier, the claimants are entitled to the additional
amount @ 12% per annum from the date of taking possession, namely, February 15, 1965.
true interpretation of subs.(IA) of s.23, we are of the considered view that
the High Court is right in con- cluding that the claimants are entitled to the
additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from March 6, 1980, the date of
publication of the notification till the date of award, namely, September 30,
1983. Sub-s.(1-A) of s.23 adumbrates that "in addition to the market value
of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the
rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period
commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under
s.4(1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the 385 Collector
or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier". In
other words, the owner of the land who has been deprived of the enjoyment of
the land by having been parted with possession, the Act intended that the owner
be compensated by awarding an additional amount calculated at the rate of
12_per centum per annum on the enhanced market value for the period between the
date of notification and the date of award or date of taking possession of the
land whichever is earlier. Admittedly, possession having already been taken on
February 15, 1965, before publication of the notification under s.4(1) on March
6, 1980, the award of additional amount for the period from March 6, 1980 to
September 30, 1983, i.e. the date of making the award under s. 11 is perfectly
correct. In addition to other statutory benefits, the owner also is entitled to
the additional amount but to given award additional amount from February 15,
1965, i.e. from the date of taking possession, though apparently earlier in
point of time mentioned in s.23(1-A), in effect it amounts to giving
retrospective effect to Sub-s.(1-A) to s.23 under the Amendment Act 68/84.
though the Amendment Act was prospective and the transitory provision had only
retro limited activity.
we hold that the claimants would be entitled to additional amount of the
enhanced market value at 12% per annum from the date of the publication of the
notification under s.4(1) till the date of the award, since possession had
already been taken before the Amending Act has come into force. Both the appeal
by the State and cross appeal by the claimant are accordingly dismissed. No