Bombay High Court
Dinkar Sandipan Gholve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 July, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 (1) AIR BOM R 203, 2009 A I H C 1309
Author: F.I. Rebello
Bench: F.I. Rebello, Santosh Bora
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2559 of 2008
1.Dinkar Sandipan Gholve, )
Age 49 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
2.Sopan S/o.Sukhdeo Gaikwad )
Age 62 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
3.Baburao s/o.Sukhdeo Gaikwad )
Age 52 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
4.Shankar Sandipal Gholve, )
Age 47 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
5.Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve, )
Age 78 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
6.Ashok Sandipan Gholve, )
Age 45 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
7.Gangadhar Ramchandra Gholve, )
Age 35 years,Occ.Agriculture )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:36 :::
-2-
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
8.Fulchand Janardhan Gholve, )
Age 35 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
9.Vishwanath Pandurang Thombre )
Age 45 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
10.Machindra Pandurang Thombre )
Age 52 years,Occ.Agriculture
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij,
)
)
District Beed. )
11.Gorakh Ranoba Gholve, )
Age 60 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
12.Shankar Ranoba Gholve, )
Age 65 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
13.Annasaheb Ramrao Gholve, )
Age 47 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:36 :::
-3-
14.Balasaheb Ramrao Gholve, )
Age 45 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
15.Ramrao Dharmaraj Gholve, )
Age 37 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
16.Ramhari Ranoba Gholve, )
Age 62 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed.
17.Achut Devrao Gholve,
ig )
)
Age 67 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
18.Kashibai Shankar Gholve, )
Age 42 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Pampalgaon,Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
19.Padminibai Dinkar Gholve, )
Age 44 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
20.Narayan Eknath Gholve, )
Age 65 years,Occ.Agriculture )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::
-4-
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
21.Vilas Annasaheb Gholve, )
22.Vikas Annasaheb Gholve, )
Petitioners 21 and 22 minors )
through their natural )
Guardian Vrandavanibai )
Annasaheb Gholve, )
Age 40 years, Occ.Agri., )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
Dist. Beed. )
23.Vishnu s/o.Navruti Kedar,
Age 56 years, Occ.Agri.,
)
)
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kej, Dist. )
Beed. )
24.Hanumant Shivaji Gholve, )
25.Kum.Seema Shivaji Gholve, )
Pet. Nos. 24 and 25 minors )
through their natural )
guardian Smt. Gawalanbai )
Shivaji Gholve, )
Age 45 years, Occ.Agri., )
R/o. Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
Dist. Beed. )
26.Prakash Balasaheb Gholve, )
27.Pradeep Balasaheb Gholve, )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::
-5-
Pet. NO.26 and 27 minors )
through their natural )
Guardian Dmy.Dhstfsbsi )
Balasaheb Gholve, )
Age 40 years, Occ.Agri., )
R/o.Sarni, Tal. Kaij, )
Dist. Beed. )
28.Shantabai Kondiba Gholve, )
Age 65 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Pimpalgaon Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
29.Ramrao Devidas Gholve,
Age 65 years,Occ.Agriculture
)
)
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
30.Bhagwan Devidas Gholve, )
Age 50 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
31.Sakharam Devidas Gholve, )
Age 45 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )
32.Vasant Ramrao Gholve, )
Age 27 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal. Kaij, )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::
-6-
District Beed. )
33.Vasudeo Babasaheb Gholve, )
34.Vilas Babasaheb Gholve, )
Petnrs.33 and 34 minors )
through their natural )
Guardian Smt. Gayabai )
Babasaheb Gholve, )
Age 30 years, Occ. Agri., )
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal.Kaij, )
Dist. Beed. )
35.Vithal Bhairao Gaikwad, )
Age 55 years,Occ.Agriculture
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal. Kaij,
)
)
District Beed. )
36.Sandip Bhairao Gaikwad, )
Age 60 years,Occ.Agriculture )
R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tal. Kaij, )
District Beed. )..PETITIONERS
Versus
1.The State of Maharashtra )
through its Secretary, )
Irrigation Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
2.The Collector, Beed, Dist. )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::
-7-
Beed. )
3.The Special Land Acquisition )
Officer No.1, Beed, At Post )
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. )
4.The Executive Engineer, )
Minor Irrigation Division, )
Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. )..RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.B.Kale holding for Mr.R.K.Shingrapre for the
Petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent State.
Mr. D.R.Jayabhar, for the Petitioners.
Mr. U.K.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent State
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATE : 24TH JULY,2008.
JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.)
. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. There are 36 petitioners in Writ Petition
No.2559 of 2008. Their lands were acquired for the
Sarani - Sangavi Minor Irrigation Tank. According to
the petitioners the respondents took possession of the lands on 19th July, 2005. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9th December, 2004 and published on 23rd March, 2005.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -8-The Award was passed on 22nd December, 2006.
According to the petitioners the statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been paid to the petitioner.
Though the petitioners have made representation on 10th December, 2007 the above statutory benefits have not been paid till date. Consequently the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the Respondents to decide the application dated 10th December, 2007 filed by the petitioners by paying them the statutory benefits. During the course of the hearing that as on behalf of the petitioners it is possession of the land was taken before submitted the issuance of the Notification they are entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and interest under Section 34 of the Act.
3. Alternatively it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to rental compensation in terms of the Government G.R. dated 1st December, 1972 read with Government Resolution dated 2nd April, 1979.
It is submitted that in terms of this G.R. the petitioners are entitled for rental compensation which is 8% of the Award value. The Award value, it is submitted, is not only the market value of the land, but all ingredients including trees standing on the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -9- land and appurtenant thereto as are set out in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
. On behalf of the respondent State it is submitted that considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. vs. D.D.A. and Others, 2004 AIR S.C.W. 1627 the petitioners are neither entitled to the benefit Section 23(1-A) between the date of taking possession and the issuance of notification under Section 4 nor are they entitled to interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act. It is in further submitted that issue of rental compensation is not issue in the present petition and the Court should not suo moto decide the same. Alternatively, it is submitted that rental compensation payable is only on the market value and that will be payable between the date of taking possession and the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. The issue, therefore, for our consideration in these petitioners are:-
1. Whether the land owners whose lands were taken by private negotiations before the Notification under Section 4 are entitled for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -10- additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as also interest on the compensation awarded under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act?
2. In the alternative are the petitioners entitled to rental compensation in terms of Government Resolution dated 1st December, 1972 red with G.R. dated 2nd April, 1979 and if so whether rental compensation is to be worked out on the market value or the Award value and in that context expression what will be the "Award Value" and secondly meaning whether of such rental compensation is to be paid from the date of taking possession till the date on which the full amount of final Award is paid or the date of Section 4 Notification.
6. To contend that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under Section 23(1-A) as also interest on the compensation under Section 34 the learned Counsel has brought to our attention the provisions of Section 3A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted, placing reliance on Section 3A that it empowers the Government to take possession and consequently the possession so taken ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -11- would be possession under the Act. This, it is submitted, was not considered by the Supreme Court in in R.L. Jain (D) L.Rs. (Supra) and consequently that judgment is distinguishable. In support thereof the learned Counsel has firstly relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Guntur v.Vasireddy Hama Bhanu Bhupal & Ors. AIR 1970 Andhra Pradesh 262. We may at once note that the Full Bench judgment was before the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act by which Section 23(1-A) was introduced concerned, though the in so far as position remains the same.
Section The 34 is Full Bench of the A.P. High Court was considering the expression "taking possession of the land" considering Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act uses the expression, payment of interest from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land. In other words the possession pursuant to the power to take possession in terms of Section 36 of the Land Acquisition Act. We may only point out that apart from Section 36 the other power to take possession is in case of emergency under Section 17 of the Act. In that case the land of the Claimant was taken possession by the municipality of Guntur on 30th November, 1950 for constructing the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -12- Reservoir for Guntur Water Supply Scheme.
Subsequently Government acquired the same property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The issue for consideration before the Full Bench was whether the claimant was entitled to interest under the Act when the Municipality has taken the possession not under the Act but by private negotiations from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
The learned Full Bench of the A.P. High Court held that the claimant would be entitled to interest from the date when he is deprived of his possession.
7. Reference is next made to the judgment of the learned Supreme Court in Satinder Singh vs. Umrao Singh and Anr. AIR 1961 S.C. 908. One of the questions there for consideration was whether the claimants under the provisions of the East Punjab Requisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, are entitled to interest on the amount of the compensation for the period between taking over the possession of the land by the State and the payment of compensation by it to the claimants. The Supreme Court after considering the position of law noted that when the person is deprived of the right to receive the income from the property, during the time lag between taking possession by the State and the payment ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -13- of compensation by it to the claimant, a person during this period is deprived of the income of the property and as they have not been able to receive interest from the amount of compensation, generally implies an agreement to pay interest on the value of the property and it is on this principle that a claim for interest is made against the State. Applying that principle the Court was considering whether the application of the Rule is intended to be excluded by the Act of 1948. Considering the provisions, the Court held that they could not reasonably infer that the Act intends to exclude the application of this general rule in the matter of payment of interest.
. Lastly reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmanrao Bapurao Jadhav & Anr.
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 334 where the Supreme Court noted the provisions of Section 3A that is inserted by Bombay amendment Act 22 of 1945. Considering the scope of those provisions the Court noted that apart from officers mentioned in Section 7 other officers named under Section 3A could inspect the property even before the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court also noted Section 3-B which was payment of damages while entering upon the land under Section 3A.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -14-8. We may now consider the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. (supra). This judgment was dealing with the issue of payment of interest to a land owner, where possession of land was taken before the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court answered the issue in para.18. We may gainfully reproduce the said paragraph, which read as under:-
"18. In a case where the land owner is dispossessed preliminary prior Notification to the issuance under S.4(1) of of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings.
He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -15- land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of S.48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded."
It is thus clear that interest under Section 34 is not payable in such case.
. In
concerned,
so far as
igissue of Section 23(1-A)
the issue was not directly in issue but in is para.16, the Supreme Court noted the judgments of the co-ordinate Benches of the Supreme Court one of which had taken a view that compensation was not payable under Section 23(1-A) between the date of possession and publication of notification and the other view that additional amount was payable from the date of taking possession and the notification under Section
4. The larger Bench of the Supreme Court answered the issue as under:-
"For the reasons already indicated, we are of the opinion that the view taken in Special Tehsildar is legally correct and the view to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -16- the contrary taken in Assistant Commissioner, Gadag (supra) is not in accordance with law and is hereby overruled."
The law as laid down in Special Tehsildar (LA) PWD Schemes, Vijaywada vs. M.A. Jabbar, AIR 1995 SC 762 held that the claimant would not be entitled to additional sum for the period anterior to publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
. In our opinion considering that the provisions of either both directly Section 23(1-A) as well as Section in consideration or considered 34 were and answered, it would be clear that the land owners whose possession was taken by private agreement before notification under Section 4(1) is not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) nor the interest as contemplated under Section 34. However, as noted by the Supreme Court the land owner would be entitled to rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains the possession of the property. The power is conferred on the Collector to determine the rent or damages. The Supreme Court also noted that in determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owner for such period interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -17-Considering this position of law the persons interested whose land was taken possession before the notification under Section 4(1) would be entitled to compensation and/or damages which would normally have to be calculated at the rate of interest which a Nationalised Bank would pay on a Fixed Deposit at the prevailing rate. The claim of the applicant to that extent will have to be rejected.
10. Considering, however, that the Supreme Court has cast a duty on the Collector to award rent or in damages the second contention will have to be examined the context of the Government resolution issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 1st December, 1972 read with G.R. dated 22nd April, 1979. We may note that pursuant to this G.R. the State has provided for circumstances under which possession of the lands can be taken by private negotiations so as to take speedy possession of the lands for public projects. Para.6 of the G.R. is relevant and we reproduce the same:-
"6. Payment of rental compensation:- The responsibility of payment of rental compensation to the title holder of the lands taken over by Irrigation and Power Department/Buildings and Communications ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -18- Department Officer through Private negotiations rests with Irrigation and Power Department/Bildings and Communications Department Officer for the period from the date on which possession of the land is taken over till the date on which the full amount of final Award is paid. Government has now decided that the rental compensation payable shall be 6 1/2 per cent of the final award value in respect of both non-Agricultural land and Agricultural land. With a view to avoiding any inconvenience have willingly to the owners of the parted with their land and land who to ensure timely and regular payments of rental compensation, the following procedure should be adopted:-
(i) As soon as possession is taken over, the estimated values of the lands should be ascertained from the Collector of the District or any other revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar on his behalf but not the concerned Land Acquisition Officer.
The amount of yearly rental
compensation should then be worked out
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::
-19-
at 5 per cent of the estimated value of the land and paid yearly to the land owner. These yearly payments will be provisional and should be paid up to the date on which the full amount of final award is paid to the land owner.
After the award is declared and the
award value is known, final amount of
rental compensation should be worked
out at 6 1/2 per cent of the award
value and the balance amount if due,
3
should be paid to the land owner within months from the date the award value is paid. If provisional payment of rental compensation made are in excess of the final amount, the excess amount should be recovered from the land owner with the help of Revenue Department Officers where necessary. n case in which advance payment of land compensation is made in accordance with Government Orders in Government Resolution, Revenue and Forest Department No.LQN-3570-H, dated the 3rd August, 1970, the rental compensation for the period after the advance ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -20- payments is made should be worked out on the balance amount to be paid.
(ii) Where the land is cultivated by the tenant, the landlord should be paid the rent payable under Tenancy Act and the balance to the tenant. Charges, if any, on the land payable to Government either by the landlord or the tenant should be deducted from the rent payable to them."
. Under
this G.R., rental compensation is fixed
at 6 1/2 per cent. By G.R. of 2nd April, 1979 this
was increased to 8%. We are concerned with these
G.Rs. as they were in force at the time possession of
the lands were taken. We now, therefore, propose to
answer the issue considering the principles laid down
in R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. (supra) and the Government
Resolution. The Supreme Court it may be noted had
made reference to Section 48 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The compensation payable under Section 48 is for
the damages suffered by the owner in consequence of
the notice or of any proceedings thereunder. It is,
therefore, an independent appraisal on the quantum of
damages and has no link either with market value or
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::
-21-
compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act.
The compensation which is quantified at prevailing
bank rate would normally be based on the amount of
compensation awarded. A learned Division Bench of
this Court in Maimuna Banu Hamidali Khan & Ors. vs.
State & Ors., 2001 (3) All M.R. 449 had framed two
questions for consideration of which question No.1 was as under;-
"(i) Whether the land holders whose land was
acquired by private negotiations or otherwise
before
the Act
the land acquisition proceedings were initiated are entitled for under the payment of rental compensation for the period from the date of possession till the date of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the Reference Court."
We have perused the discussion of the learned Division Bench and find the following observations:-
"We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that when the land/property is acquired by consent or by private negotiations, the owner concerned is entitled for the payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -22-
We are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that in so far as the issue of interest is concerned that part of the judgment has been set aside. We do not find, however, any direct answer by the Bench as to the period from which the rental compensation must be paid. The learned Bench seems to have placed reliance on the Government Resolution.
. Before answering the issue we may refer to the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 2001 S.C. 3516.
3516issue whether The learned Supreme Court was considering the solatium is part of compensation.
the The submission was that the interest envisaged in Section 28 as well as Section 34 would accrue on the aggregate amount which includes the solatium as well.
The submission on behalf of the Union of India was that there was a distinction between compensation awarded for the land as indicated under Section 23 of the Act and the aggregate compensation which comprises the former plus the solatium and the additional amount payable under sub-section (1-A) thereof. It was submitted that the two sums in the latter category are payable merely as consequential to the determination of the compensation mentioned in the first sub-section. Alternatively it was contended that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -23- actual loss sustained by the landowner is the enjoyment of the property and hence the real compensation is the just equivalent of it which represents only the amount covered by the different clauses incorporated in the first sub-section of Section 23 of the Act. Answering the issue the Court posed to itself the question expression of the meaning "compensation awarded". Answering the issue the Court answered that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof amount' as well and that the would mean the amount of compensation expression 'awarded worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23 including all the sub-sections thereof.
Thus for the purpose of the Act the Court held that the Awarded amount would include the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with Section 23 of the Act.
11. As a contention was raised that the amount payable is not only for the land, but for the structures and things standing thereon including trees on behalf of the land owners reliance has been placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Reliance Industries Ltd., Bombay & Anr. vs. State of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -24- Maharashtra & Ors., 2006 (5) All M.R. 288. A learned Bench of this Court considering the expression land was pleased to hold that there cannot be acquisition of limited interest in the land, but it has be whole of the land including things attached or permanently fastened thereto as well as benefits arising therefrom. In our opinion it may not be necessary to answer the submission based on the said judgment. The rental compensation has to be paid in terms of the Government G.R. In terms of the Government Resolution rental compensation is worked out at 8% of the Awarded value.
Section
The awarded
igvalue, therefore,
23 of the Land Acquisition Act would considering include all components included under Section 23. It must be borne in mind that this rental compensation is payable based on two aspects (1) Possession has earlier been taken and for possession earlier taken, the interest in terms of Section 34 is not payable and also non-payment of additional amount under Section 23(1-A). The rental compensation, therefore, payable is the compensation worked out at the rate of 6 1/2 per cent or 8 per cent as the case may be on the awarded value and is payable from the date of taking possession till the full amount of final award is paid to the land owner.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -25-12. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the State that the rental compensation is only for the period between taking over possession and issuance of Notification under Section 4. We are afraid we cannot agree to this submission on behalf of the State Government. This submission is directly contrary to para.6 of G.R. dated 1st December, 1972. On account of the fact that possession is taken not under the provisions of the Act and before the issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) the Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. (supra) has held that such additional land owners ig would not be compensation under Section 23(1-A) as also entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
A land owner who in good faith has given his possession, therefore, is denied the additional amount and interest under Section 34 which he would have got at the rate of 9% and 15% respectively. The Government G.R. has to be construed in that background. The rental compensation is directed to be paid from the date of taking possession till the rental compensation is paid. We may point out that ordinarily the Collector could not have taken possession unless he had paid the compensation as awarded (See Hissar Improvement Trust v. Smt. Rukmani Devi and Anr., AIR 1990 SC 2033). The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -26- principle, therefore, in considering the G.R. is that as the land owner is being denied the additional amount and the interest which otherwise he would be entitled under to the provisions of the Act the State in terms of the G.R. has decided to compensate the land owner. The State cannot contend that though it takes possession of the land and deprives the owner the right to use the land yet it will not compensate the land owner. The rental compensation is, therefore, payable from the date the possession of the land was taken till the date on which the full amount of the final award is paid.
13. Learned Counsel apart from that brought to our attention the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Maimuma Babu & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3698 which has also considered the G.Rs., issued by the State including another resolution dated 24th March, 1988 which requires that the payment will be realised expeditiously as possible but in no case beyond the period of six months from the date of the judgment by the Collector concerned. It is in that context that the Supreme Court observed that it will be appropriate that if the appellant pay interest at the rate of 6% on the rental compensation. If, therefore, the respondent State has not paid the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -27- rental compensation within six months as contemplated by resolution of 24th March, 1988 the said rental compensation will carry interest at the rate of 6% till payment.
14. Having answered the issue in our opinion, it would be appropriate that the petitioners are relegated to appear before the Special Land acquisition Officer who will consider the following aspects:-
(i) Date of actual taking over possession.
(ii) Date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) (whichever is first) gazette, newspaper or publication in the locality.
. The Special Land Acquisition Officer will then work out the rental compensation at 8 per cent from the date of taking possession till the amount awarded under the Award has been paid or in the case of dispute till the amount is deposited before the reference Court. Interest will be payable on the said rental compensation at the rate of 6% from the expiry of six months as contemplated in Government G.R. dated 24th March, 1988 till payment as contemplated by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 ::: -28- Government G.R. dated 1st December, 1972.
15. Rule made absolute in the above mentioned terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SANTOSH BORA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:37:37 :::