LAXMI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel representing revision petitioner. The respondent had been served, proof of service had been filed and none represents the respondent.

(2.) SRI N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, committed a serious irregularity in holding that the claimant- petitioner is not entitled for interest from 31. 7. 1996 i. e. , the date of dismissal of O. P. till the disposal of the main O. P. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the grant of interest is a statutory relief under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) as such the said relief cannot be denied nor subjected to any condition. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the interest is payable on the market value, solatium and the additional market value from the date of taking possession of the lands under acquisition, as a matter of right, as it is mandatory and it is not discretionary. Further, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through different provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the very making of the default order is not sustainable and further the Counsel would contend that in addition thereto imposition of onerous condition also cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in Vijay Kumar Madan and others v. R. N. Gupta Technical Education Society and others, AIR 2002 SC 2082 and Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs. v. Union of India, 2002 (2) ALD 1 (SC) = (2002) 2 SCC 242.

(3.) IN Khazan Singh (dead) by LRs. v. Union of India (supra) the Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of Sections 18 and 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, observed at Paras 6 to 10 as hereunder: