AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel for the petitioners submit that affidavit of paper publication has been filed in compliance of order dated 16.03.2026 to show that service has been effected on respondent No.1.
By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :
7.1.To call for the record pertaining to passing of the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dt. 22.11.11 passed in MJC 67/11 & Annexure P-2 dt. 30.6.11 passed in MJC 33/98 by the court of I ADJ Nasrullaganj, Distt. Sehore M.P. Shri Vijay Malviya, for kind perusal.
7.2To correct the period of additional compensation payable for the period ‘from the date of publication to date of award ', as provided in section 23(1-A) of the Act.
7.3To grant any other relief which Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice."
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that only short controversy which is involved in the matter is that whether the person whose land has been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) is entitled for interest from date of notification till the actual payment or till the award is passed.
It is submitted that as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act, interest @ 12% is to be awarded to the persons whose land/property has been acquired from the date of notification till the date of award. It is submitted that by impugned order dated 30.06.2011 (Annexure P/2), the learned Court below has directed for payment of interest @ 12% from the date of notification till actual payment. When review application to review the order dated 30.06.2011 has been filed, the learned Court below vide order dated 22.11.2011 Annexure P/1 has dismissed the review application on the ground that there was construction over the land which has been acquired, therefore, interest has been granted from the date of notification till actual payment. It is submitted that such finding is contrary to law and therefore, deserves to be quashed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The question which arises for consideration in the present case in hand is whether a person whose land has been acquired under the provisions of the Act is entitled for payment of amount @ 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of actual payment, or till the date of passing of the award.
Section 23(1A) of the Act, provides for :
(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, 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 section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
On bare reading of the said provision, it is evident that a person whose land has been acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1894 is entitled to payment of amount @ 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of the award.
In the present case in hand, the learned Court below vide order dated 30.06.2011 (Annexure P/2) has directed for payment of 12% amount from the date of notification till actual payment which is unsustainable in view of Section 23(1A) of the Act. The review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P/1) affirming the order dated 30.06.2011 (Annexure P/2). In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court below has committed error of law in granting 12% amount beyond the period prescribed under the Act.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2002) 1 SCC 142 has held as under :
6.It is, as we see it, clear from Section 23(1-A) that the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the present case, possession of the land having been taken prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification, that terminal is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award. The High Court, therefore, was in no error in holding that the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period 8-3-1991 to 6-2-1993.
7.Section 23(1-A) admits of no meaning other than the meaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room here for any construction other than that given above. It is only where a provision is ambiguous that a construction that leads to a result that is more just can be adopted. Having regard to its clear terms, Section 23(1-A) must receive the only construction it can bear. We are of the view, therefore, that the law has been correctly laid down in the decision in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v. M.A. Jabbar [(1995) 2 SCC 142] and that it has not been correctly laid down in Asstt. Commr., Gadag Sub-Division v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa [(1995) 6 SCC 355] and, for that matter in State of H.P. v. Dharam Das [(1995) 5 SCC 683] .
Accordingly, in view the above enunciation of law, the impugned orders Annexure P/1 dated 22.11.11 and Annexure P/2 dated 30.06.11 are hereby set-aside. It is observed that the claimant shall be entitled to the amount @ 12% per annum from the date of notification till the date of award.
The petition is allowed in above terms.