LAWS(ORI)-1963-11-6

SWARNAMAYI PANIGRAHI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

Decided On November 18, 1963
SWARNAMAYI PANIGRAHI Appellant
V/S
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Ganjam, refusing to grant interest to the appellants on the compensation amount paid to them in respect of certain lands acquired by the Government for the construction of some quarters of the Superintending Engineer, Western Circle, Berhampur.

(2.) THE appellants owned some A 4. 12 cents of land in mouza Bidyadharpur in the town of Berhampur. The Government was in need ot some lands for the construction of staff quarters of the Super-intending Engineer, Western Circle. Before any formal proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act was taken up, the executive Engineer, P. W. D. , Ganjam, made negotiations with the appellants and took possession of the said lands on 28-12-1948 for the aforesaid purpose. After faking over possession, the Government proceeded to construct the necessary quarters in the year 1949-50 and duly let out the same to the staff. While giving over possession, the appellants, however, gave their consent in the following terms :

(3.) ON 12-11-1957, the appellants filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act claiming interest at 6 per cent per annum on the compensation amount from 2812-48, that is, from the date when they gave up their possession, till 28-10-57, the date of the aforesaid award and requested the Collector to refer the matter to the District Judge for a legal adjudication of their right to claim interest. The matter was referred to the District Judge in the usual course and came up for consideration befors him in Miscellaneous Case No. 5/57. The learned District judge rejected the claim for interest on two grounds, viz. , (i) The appellants not having made any previous claim for interest, shall be deemed to have waived their right to such interest; and (ii) That the possession of land having been taken by negotiation and not under Section 17 of the Act, the appellants were not entitled to any interest under Section 34 of the Act. The correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge is now challenged in this appeal.