SHOBHA BHAI SINGH Vs. DIVISONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the case is listed today for considering the application for urgent hearing filed by the appellant but taking note of the very short controversy involved and the fact that there is no dispute, factual in nature with regard to the said controversy, with the consent of the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal at this stage itself. Challenge in this appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to an award passed by the Additional District Judge, Seoni on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Award in question has been passed on 03-08-2009 and compensation to the appellant has been granted based on the assessment of the market value of the property. However, the only dispute warranting consideration in this appeal is with regard to award of interest under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3.) Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant invites our attention to the order in question and the manner in which the interest on the market value under section 23(1-A) has been calculated and paid. It is pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer in his communication available at page no. 21 dated 31-08-2007 in column No. 3 has directed for calculating the interest as contemplated under section 23(1-A) at the rate of 12% from 25-04-2001 to 30-12-2006. It is pointed out that 25-04-2001 is the date when the compensation was assessed by the Collector and it is not the date when the actual notification under section 4 was issued. According to Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of law i.e. section 23(1-A) is that the individual is entitled to interest in additional to the market value of the rate which has to be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the period commencing from the date of publication of the notification under sub section (1) of section 4, and not the date of the award by the collector, accordingly, contending that in the present case the date of notification under section 4(1) is of 29-10-69 and not 25-04-2001, the challenge is made to the order in question.