AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are preferred challenging the common judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby the order passed by the Reference Court thereby allowing amendment to include the date of dispossession in its award dated 15.3.2008 was set aside and the original award was restored.
To unveil the facts, the appellants herein are the owners of the properties situated at Hosur Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shimoga District. The lands are acquired for the purpose of construction of an outlet for Murugannana Kere, Huluginakatte Village, Shikaripura taluk. Vide Gazette Notification dated 16.11.2000 award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (''L.A.O.'' for short). At the instance of the owners, the matters were referred to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (''the Act'' for short).
The learned Civil Judge held enquiry and vide judgment dated 15.3.2008 enhanced the compensation passed by the L.A.O. in the following terms:
"L.A.C.46/2007 is hereby partly allowed.
The claimant in the above case in respect of acquired land is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.74,100/- per acre.
The claimant is also entitled for additional market value at the rate of 12% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of preliminary notification till date of award or from the date of dispossession till the date of award which ever is earlier.
The claimant is entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. the enhanced compensation amount.
The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% during the first year from the date of dispossession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of realization of entire compensation amount (which includes solatium market value)."
An application was filed on behalf of one of the claimants under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC to amend the judgment by incorporating the date of taking possession and the date of award. It was the contention of the owners that the PWD took the possession of the land on 13.7.1993 and the date of possession was 2.4.1962, as per the first award passed by the L.A.O., Sagar, in L.A.C.No.22/71-72 dated 6.8.1973. The award of the L.A.O. was passed on 19.5.2003. But in the said award, he did not mention about the previous award.
After hearing both sides, the learned Judge allowed the application and permitted the claimant to correct the judgment and decree as prayed. The said order when challenged by the State before this Court in Writ Petition No.11296/2011 (LA-RES) was rejected as not maintainable reserving liberty to the petitioners to file appeal under Section 54 of the Act. Thus, the matter was appealed before the District Court and the learned court below allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Civil Judge in allowing the application for amendment of the judgment.
The pith of grievance of the petitioners is, the impugned order of the lower appellate Court deprived them from interest on the enhanced compensation and other components of award in respect of period from 21.4.1962 i.e., taking over possession. The L.A.O. in his award incorrectly held that possession of the land was taken in 1995.
The question of interest on different components of the compensation was considered by the Apex Court in the case of R.J.Jain -vs- D.D.A. & Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1904, wherein in para-18, it is held thus:
"18. In a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary Notification under section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded. "
It is not that the appellants are without remedy in respect of the damages and loss suffered by them from the date of taking over of the actual possession till the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The appellants are entitled to file an application before the competent authority (State Government)/District Commissioner and claim damages towards dispossession of the lands owned by them till the date of issuance of the notice (as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer -vs- Karigowda and Others reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708).
In that view of the matter, the lower appellate court has not committed any error in allowing the application thereby undoing the order of the Civil Judge to amend the judgment by introducing the date of taking over of the possession.
Hence, these appeals are dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to approach the competent authority to seek appropriate relief, if so advised. If such a petition is filed by them within a period of one month, same shall be considered without undue delay by the concerned authority within an outer limit of four months from the date of the said petition.