SUBHADRA Vs. STATE OP MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of construction of a tank at Hosalli village, Koppal Taluk, certain land belonging to the appellant-claimant became submerged under water in the year 1959-60. Later on preliminary notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published proposing to acquire the said land in the Mysore Gazette dt.8-11- 1962. On the basis of the said notification, the land was acquired and the Lund Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing Rs.35,374 as the compensation payable in respiect of the said land. The said amount was paid to claimant on 26-11-1963. While doing so, he did not award interest for the period prior to 26-11-1963, on the ground that the possession had not been taken at all pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings. The appellant objected to the said award and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the interest payable to her. She however had no objection regarding the market value of land as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter referred the matter to the Civil Judge, Raichur. After hearing the parties, the lower Court found that the case of the appellant was not sustainable with regard to the claim for interest on the ground that in respect of the period anterior to the initiation of the land acquisition procepdings under S.4(1) of the Act. the appellant was not entitled to claim interest on the amount of compensation under Sec.34 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Court, the claimant has filed this appeal.

(2.) It is to be seen from the statement of the case submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 19 of the Act to the lower Court, that the lands of the appellant had become submerged from the year 1959-60. It is also stated therein that the Public Works Department completed the construction of the tank on 31-3-1959 much earlier to the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings in this case. The land acquisition procedings became necessary only on account of the submersion of the land of the appellant. It is no doubt true that in the record of the Land Acqui|Sition Officer it is shown that the possession of the land was taken on 27-1-1964. It is very difficult to accept the said position. It refers only to the formal taking of possession of the land. Actually the land was under water even according to the statement of case submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer from the year 1959-60. One Radhakrishna who is the son of the appellant has been examined as PW.1 in the case. He has stated in the course, of the deposition that the land of the appellant was submerged by the water of the tank from 1958 onwards. In the course of the cross-examination again he reiterated that even though the record of the Land Acquisition Officer showed that possession was taken on 27-1-1964, in fact the appellant lost possession of the land in the year 1958. The evidence of PW.l referred to above taken along with the statement of the case submitted by [the Land Acquisition Officer, clearly establishes that the appellant lost possession of the property on account of the submersion of the same by the water of the tank in the year 1958-59. It is not disputed that the construction of the tank was completed on 31-3-1959. If that is so, it has to be held that at least from 31-3-1959 the appellant was not in possession of the property and that she was actually deprived of the same on account of the construciton of the tank.

(3.) The next question that arises for consideration is whether under S.34 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is permissible for the Court holding an enquiry into the compensation payable to a claimant to award interest in. respect of the period prior to the date on which the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are initiated'. Sec.34 of the Act provides that the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the compensation awarded from the date on which the possession of the land is taken from him by the Deputy Commissioner, In this case, as already stated, no physical possession of the property was taken after the land acquisition proceedings were started. The appellant lost possession of the property prior to 31-3-1959. It is argued on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer by Sri Annadanayya Puranik, the learned High Court Government Pleader, that S.34 of the Act is applicable only to cases where the Deputy Commissioner takes possession of the property under the Act and not to a case of this nature where the claimant is deprived of the possession of the property on a date anterior to the commencement of the proceedings under the Act, We find that it would be both inequitable and illogical to accept the submission made on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. S.34 does rot expressly prohibit the payment of interest on the market value of the land for the period anterior to the date on which the proceedings were actually initiated. It only states that interest is payable from the date on which the Deputy Commissioner takes possession of the land. In the instant case we have already held that the Deputy. Commissioner did not take physical possession of the property at all after the proceedings were initiated. What was however done was the regularisation of the act of the Government by which the claimant was dispossessed of the land. In such a case, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the date on which the claimant lost possession of the property by reason of a certain act on the part of the Government which necessitated the initiation of the proceedings under the Act should be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of awarding interest under S.34 of the Act. The position is the same even under S.28 of the Act which requires payment of interest payable under S.34 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer if it is wrongly with-held.