1995 JTR(SC) 934
1996 AIR(SC) 274 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 4052 ; 1998 1 AllCJ 349 ; 1996 AllLJ 76 ; 1995 26 AllLR 644 ; 1995 3 CCC(SC) 563 ; 1995 3 CurCC(SC) 563 ; 1995 7 JT 158 ; 1995 3 RRR 516 ; 1995 5 Scale 567 ; 1995 6 SCC 240 ; 1995 Supp3 SCR 584 ; 1996 1 UJ 434 ; 1995 KHC 976 ; 1995 2 KLT(Online) 1028
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Shri Kishan Das and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 733 of 1981 with C.M.P. No.3910 of 1986,
D/- 12-9-1995.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28, S.23(1)(a), S.17(4), S.17, S.34
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended, governs the procedure for acquisition of land by the State, including the requirement of issuing a notification under Section 4(1), making a declaration under Section 6, and empowering the Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A through the exercise of power under Section 17(4). Section 34 provides for payment of interest at prescribed rates from the date of taking possession or from the date of the award, while Section 28 addresses enhancement of compensation on reference or appeal. In this case, the Government validly exercised power under Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry, published the notification and declaration on September 29 and 30, 1976 respectively, took possession on December 16, 1976, and later passed the award on March 22, 1983. The provisions of Sections 34 and 28 operate to govern interest liability, with deposit of compensation under Section 34 acting as a bar to further interest claims unless enhanced by the Court.
(B) The exercise of power under Section 17(4) is valid if the Government records satisfaction of urgency; courts cannot substitute their view for the Governments satisfaction. Interest on compensation is payable from the date of possession or award as per Sections 34 and 23(1-A), and timely deposit of compensation operates as a set-off for delayed awards. The disposal of acquisition proceedings causing delay does not automatically attract premium under Section 23(1-A).
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September 29, 1976, and declaration under Section 6 was made on September 30, 1976. The Government exercised Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Notice was served on November 15, 1976, and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Writ petitions were filed in 1977 challenging the exercise of power under Section 17(4), and the High Court dismissed the challenge. The award was passed on March 22, 1983, and compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer on November 15, 1976. Constructions have been completed on the acquired land.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that there was sufficient urgency to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and that the Court could not substitute its view for the Governments satisfaction. The need to question the exercise of power under Section 17(4) does not arise at a belated stage when constructions have been completed. The compensation amount was deposited soon after the award, and there is no liability to pay additional interest under the circumstances.
Issues:
Whether the Government validly exercised power under Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Whether the appellant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum for the delay in passing the award and whether compensation deposited after the date of possession attracts further interest.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Governments satisfaction under Section 17(4) that urgency required dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is final and not subject to judicial substitution. Since the compensation was deposited soon after the award and constructions were completed, the appeal for interest at an enhanced rate is not maintainable under Sections 34 and 28 of the Act.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended, governs the procedure for acquisition of land by the State, including the requirement of issuing a notification under Section 4(1), making a declaration under Section 6, and empowering the Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A through the exercise of power under Section 17(4). Section 34 provides for payment of interest at prescribed rates from the date of taking possession or from the date of the award, while Section 28 addresses enhancement of compensation on reference or appeal. In this case, the Government validly exercised power under Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry, published the notification and declaration on September 29 and 30, 1976 respectively, took possession on December 16, 1976, and later passed the award on March 22, 1983. The provisions of Sections 34 and 28 operate to govern interest liability, with deposit of compensation under Section 34 acting as a bar to further interest claims unless enhanced by the Court.
(B) The exercise of power under Section 17(4) is valid if the Government records satisfaction of urgency; courts cannot substitute their view for the Governments satisfaction. Interest on compensation is payable from the date of possession or award as per Sections 34 and 23(1-A), and timely deposit of compensation operates as a set-off for delayed awards. The disposal of acquisition proceedings causing delay does not automatically attract premium under Section 23(1-A).
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September 29, 1976, and declaration under Section 6 was made on September 30, 1976. The Government exercised Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Notice was served on November 15, 1976, and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Writ petitions were filed in 1977 challenging the exercise of power under Section 17(4), and the High Court dismissed the challenge. The award was passed on March 22, 1983, and compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer on November 15, 1976. Constructions have been completed on the acquired land.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that there was sufficient urgency to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and that the Court could not substitute its view for the Governments satisfaction. The need to question the exercise of power under Section 17(4) does not arise at a belated stage when constructions have been completed. The compensation amount was deposited soon after the award, and there is no liability to pay additional interest under the circumstances.
Issues:
Whether the Government validly exercised power under Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Whether the appellant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum for the delay in passing the award and whether compensation deposited after the date of possession attracts further interest.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Governments satisfaction under Section 17(4) that urgency required dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is final and not subject to judicial substitution. Since the compensation was deposited soon after the award and constructions were completed, the appeal for interest at an enhanced rate is not maintainable under Sections 34 and 28 of the Act.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs.
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, P.K.JAIN, R.C.VERMA, Ravindra Narayan, S.B.SANYAL
JUDGMENT :- This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated August 30, 1979 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W. No. 35/1977. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published in the Gazettee on September 29, 1976. Declaration under Section 6 was made on September 30, 1976. While issuing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Government exercised the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Consequently, notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was served on November 15, 1976 and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976.
2. The appellant had challenged the exercise of the power of the Government under Section 17(4) contending that there is no such urgency as is warranted to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and the exercise of power under Section 17(4), therefore, was illegal. The High Court had not accepted the contention holding that there was urgency to dispense with the enquiry and the Court could not substitute the satisfaction of urgency recorded by the Government when it exercised power under Section 17(4) of the Act. It is now an admitted fact that in the land under acquisition constructions have been made and completed. Under these circumstances, the need to go into the question of urgency and exercise of power under Section 17(4) at this belated stage does not arise.
3. Shri B. B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that the award was made on March 22, 1983 though the acquisition was made in September 1976. Therefore, the appellants should be compensated by payment of interest 12 per cent per annum. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ram Chand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44 : (1993 AIR SCW 3479) and in particular on paragraph 16 of the judgment. It is seen that in Ram Chands case even after the dismissal of the writ petitions by this Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285 : (AIR 1974 SC 2077), no action was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award. Thus, till 1980-81 no award was made in respect of any of the acquisitions. Under these circumstances, this Court had directed the Government to pay interest 12 per cent on the amount awarded to compensate the loss caused to the appellants therein. In this case it is seen that though the notification was issued in September 1976, the writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court immediately thereafter in 1977 in the High Court and obviously further proceedings were stayed. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer delayed the award. After the dismissal of the writ petitions, the appellants came to this Court and obtained status quo. Obviously, the Land Acquisition Officer was not in a position to pass the award immediately. Thereafter, it would appear that he passed the award on March 22, 1983. Section 34 of the Act obligates the State to pay interest from the date of taking possession under the unamended Act 6 per cent and after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 at different rates mentioned therein. The liability of the State to pay interest ceases with the deposit made as per Section 34 of the Act. Further liability would arise only when the Court on reference under Section 18 enhances the compensation under Section 28 of the Act. Similarly, in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act if the appellate Court further increases the compensation, then again similar obligation under Section 28 arises.
4. In the light of the operation of the respective provisions of Sections 34 and 28 of the Act, it would be difficult to direct payment on interest. In fact, Section 23 (1-A) is a set off for loss in cases of delayed awards to compensate the person entitled to receive compensation; otherwise a person who is responsible for the delay in disposal of the acquisition proceedings will be paid premium for dilatory tactics. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of interest was also calculated and total amount was deposited in the account of the appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer after passing the award, i.e., on November 15, 1976 in a sum of Rs. 20,48,615/-. Under these circumstances, the liability to pay interest would arise when possession of the acquired land was taken and the amount was not deposited. In view of the fact that compensation was deposited as soon as the award was passed, we do not think that it is a case for us to interfere at this stage.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed. page-SC276 page-SC276