SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred to a bench of three Judges by reason of the contrary views taken by two benches of two learned Judges in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada vs. M. A. Jabbar (1995) 2 SCC 142 on the one hand and in Asstt. Commr., Gadag, Sub-Division, Gadag vs. Mathapathi Basavannewwa (1995) 6 SCC 355 on the other. (The referral order also makes a reference to State of H. P. v Dharam Das (1995) 5 SCC 683, but no reasoning can be discerned therein.)

(2.) We are required to consider the provisions of Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the context of the following facts : Possession of land bearing Survey No. 311/3, admeasuring 2 acres and 16 guntas, situated at Village Hirenandi, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum District, Karnataka was taken by the respondents from the appellants, who were the owners thereof, on 1st June, 1977 for the purposes of the construction of an irrigation channel. On 8th March, 1991, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in relation to the said land. It was followed by a notification under Section 6. The provisions of Section 17 were thereafter applied. On 6th February, 1993, an award was made and compensation was awarded to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre. On a reference made by the appellants, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000 per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer and the State preferred appeals before the High Court. Therein, compensation was reduced to Rs. 41, 400 per acre. The decree so passed was put in execution. Before the executing Court the question of additional compensation under Section 23(1A) arose. The executing Court granted to the appellants additional compensation under Section 23(1A) from the date on which possession of the land was taken, namely, 1st June, 1977 to the date on which the Section 4 notification was issued, namely, 8th March, 1991. The High Court, before whom a revision petition was presented by the LAO, took the view that the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation from the date of the Section 4 notification, namely, 8th March, 1991, to the date of the award , namely, 6th February, 1992. Against this order of the High Court, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Section 23(1A) reads thus :