Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Writ Petition No. 2674/2000, the petitioner's agricultural land in Survey No. 48 of village Harangul (Bk) was acquired for the purpose of construction of Air Strip and possession of the said land admeasuring 2 Hectare and 49 R was taken over by private negotiations on 14-2-1987, whereas, the notice under section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued on 6-7-1987 and finally, the award was passed on 31-3-1991. His reference for higher compensation is pending before the Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Latur. He submitted an application on 16-7-1996 for payment of rental compensation @ 8% on the final award. As the application was not decided, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4137/1996, which came to be decided on 2-7-1999 with directions to the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending application for rental compensation on its own merits. The respondents calculated the amount of rental compensation and paid him the same. However, he was not paid interest on the rental compensation granted by the reference Court and he, therefore, claims his right to recover interest on rental compensation on the basis of a communication dated 2-11-1993 issue by the Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, addressed to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Aurangabad, as well as a communication between the said parties dated 15-4-1994. The petitioner further states that a similar prayer was granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1024/1989 by an order dated 7-7-1989.

In Writ Petition No. 2786/2000, the petitioners agricultural land, admeasuring 2 Hectare and 72 Are from the Survey No. 20/4 and 20/5 of village Shivani Orrala, tq. Nilanga, District, Latur, was taken possession by the respondents on 21-8-1984 by assuring to pay the rental compensation @ 8% p.a. The land acquisition proceedings were subsequently initiated and an award came to be passed under the Act on 12th April, 1991. The petitioner's reference L.A.R. No. 893/1992 for higher compensation was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Latur, on 18-8-1996. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for rental compensation @ 8% per year for the entire amount of compensation with 12% interest till the date of realization of the amount. The respondent authorities calculated the rental compensation on the basis of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 22-2-2000 for payment of rental compensation with interest on the basis of the amount awarded by the Reference Court. This request has not been considered and hence, the petitioner has approached us and he has relied upon the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 598/1994 and Writ Petition No. 1024/1989.

7. It appears that the State of Maharashtra, by issuing a Government Resolution dated 1st December, 1972 sought to bestow itself with the powers of taking possession of the land/property before instituting the land acquisition proceedings under the Act in certain cases and by following the procedure set out in the said resolution. The resolution states that the Government has authorised the Irrigation and Power Department/B & C Department to take possession of land required for its development work by private negotiations whenever possible as it was apprehended that the speed of acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not be in view of its procedural requirements, commensurate with the tempo of works planned by the concerned departments, thus resulting in delays in execution of works. It referred to its earlier Government Resolution dated 2-5-1961 for the procedure for taking over lands by private negotiations and it noted inordinate delays in deciding the rentals and therefore, set out a new procedure. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the said Government Resolution deals with the procedure for taking over the possession by private negotiations and Clause 6 deals with the payment of rental compensation. It states that the rental compensation shall be paid @ 61/2 percentum of the final award valued in respect of nonagricultural and agricultural land with a view to avoid any inconvenience/hardship to the owners of the land who have willingly parted with their land and to ensure timely and regular payment of rental compensation the procedure set out therein has to be followed. A similar Government Resolution was issued on 17-9-1977 enhancing the rental compensation to 8% and in addition, payment of interest on such compensation @ 12% p.a. The third Government Resolution came to be issued on 24th March, 1988. This Resolution has been issued after the Act came to be amended in 1984. In Clause 4 therein, it specifically refers to the payment of solatium at 30% under section 23(2) of the Act. It also confers powers for taking possession of the land under acquisition even before the acquisition proceedings are initiated and that such possession should not be a matter of course and it should be only in exceptional cases. The resolutions dated 1-12-1972, 7-12-1977 and 24-3-1988 have thus recognized the Government's powers to take possession of the land/property before initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Act and payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon as has been observed by us in our order dated 18-11-2000. The communications dated 2-11-1993 and 15-4-1994 do make out a case that the Government accepted to pay rental compensation @ 8% and interest thereon @ 12%.

"If the possession is taken earlier and notification is issued later but the award is subsequently made, the owner or the claimant is entitled to the additional compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of the award, though possession was taken before the notification under section 4(1) was published."

15. When a citizen looses the possession of his land/property, the effect is nothing short of being thrown on the roads and that involves financial liabilities not only for loss of the land/property but also for rehabilitation by way of shelter and/or means of earnings. It can not be accepted that the Government has the power to throw the property owner on roads and ask him to wait for the land acquisition proceedings being initiated under the Act at its sweet will and even, may be decades later, as has happened in some of the cases at hand turning down the claim for compensation. The intention behind the resolutions as issued by the State Government is explicit and it shows the Government's full awareness that it has no authority in law to take the possession of the land/property by consent or by private negotiations prior to the date of publication of the notice under section 4(1) of the Act and therefore, to meet the emergency situation, may be in the larger public interest to take over the immediate possession of the land/property. Therefore, the Government Resolutions appear to have been issued from time to time recognizing the land/property owners' right to receive rental compensation and interest thereon. It is also seen from the record that in selected cases the Government has paid rental compensation as well as interest thereon and in some other cases, the same benefit has been denied to petitioners for the reasons best known to the Government. The directions issued by this Court from time to time which have been referred to in the earlier paragraphs, regarding payment of rental compensation have not been challenged by the State Government and these directions have become final. These directions have been implemented and rental compensation has been paid to the concerned land/property owners on the basis of the Resolutions allowing such payments. The loss of possession of agricultural land entails the loss of earning by way of cultivation of crops and if such possession is taken over without instituting the acquisition proceedings as contemplated under the Act, the land owner must be compensated for such loss immediately. If such rental compensation has been paid belatedly, the land owner is entitled to receive interest thereon. The amended provisions of the Act, as relied upon by the learned Additional Government Pleader do not envisage and cover, in their ambit, the cases of such acquisitions by consent or by private negotiations except as contemplated under section 17 of the Act. 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. The absence of such provision regarding payment of compensation would certainly defeat the protection guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law.