LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. CHINTAMANI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for determination in this appeal is whether a person whose land has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (shortly called 'the Act') would be entitled to interest contemplated by Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of taking possession of the land even if the same be prior in point of time to the date of the award, or for that matter, the date of notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned single Judge who examined the matter having rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Office that interest for the aforesaid period cannot be granted, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) IT is urged by Shri Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, that as possession of the land can be taken in view of what has been stated in Section 16 of the Act after an award has been made Under Section 11, the interest contemplated by the aforesaid two sections has to run from the date possession of the land has been taken Under Section 16. In view of what has been stated in Section 17 of the Act. It is, however, conceded that the interest contemplated by Sections 28 and 34 of the Act can also run from a date prior to the making of the award, as Section 17 permits taking of possession on the expiry of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act. It is strenuously contended that interest cannot be allowed, under the provisions of the Act, for any period prior to the taking of possession permitted by Section 17.

(3.) THE aforesaid question is not res integra even in so for as this Court is concerned. There are two Bench decisions of this Court which have held that interest would be payable from the date of taking over possession of the land' irrespective of the fact that the possession could have been taken by invoking any provision of the Act. The first of such decisions was rendered in Swarnamayi v. L. A. Collector, AIR 1964 Ori. 113. In that decision, G. K. Misra, J. (as he then was) formulated three propositions which were said to be well -established and applied as much to private sale as to compulsory acquisition of land. The propositions laid down were : (i) the act of taking possession is an implied agreement to pay interest, (ii) the right to receive interest takes the place of the right to retain possession; and (iii) as a corollary to the aforesaid two propositions, if the owner is deprived of the land, he should be put in possession of compensation immediately, if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition, interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation. These propositions were called out from these decisions : Ratanlal Choonilal v. Municipal Commr., AIR 1918 PC 119 : Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, AIR 1928 PC 287 : Vallabdas Narainji v. Development Officer, AIR 1929 PC 163; and Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1981 SC 908. Though in the leading judgment of R K. Das, J., reference was also made to Rule 3 of Chapter XXVI of the Land Acquisition Manual, it is apparent that the propositions laid down above have nothing to do with this rule.