AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ
In the Counter Affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the matters relate to temporary occupation under Section 35 under Part VI of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in course of which certain trees were felled. Therefore, the principle of Section 34 under Part V sought to be invoked by the petitioners is misconceived. The learned Court has rightly granted interest from the date of the award passed by learned LA Court.
Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand submits that the occupation may be temporary but in the process, trees have been felled and compensation has been computed on the damage to the trees where the principles of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would apply. Therefore, interest is to be computed on the enhanced compensation from the date of the original award or the cutting of the trees and not from the date of the judgment or award passed by learned LA Judge.
Learned counsel for both the parties seek time to come prepared on this legal issue.
List both the matters on 24.01.2025.