http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PUTTAIAH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  136            1995 SCC  (5) 577  JT 1995 (6)   657        1995 SCALE  (5)176

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Though  the  respondents  have  been  served,  none  is appearing either  in person or through counsel. The admitted position  is   that  there   being  a   dispute  as  to  the apportionment of  the compensation,  the  Collector  made  a reference under  s.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ’the  Act’) and  the Reference Court formed the point thus :      "Who among the claimants are entitled to      receive compensation  and to what extent      ?"      The Civil  Court, while  apportioning the  compensation among the  claimants, awarded  interest 9%  per annum on the amount of  compensation. When  it was  challenged  in  Civil Revision Petition No. 1148/87 dated March 10, 1987, the High Court confirmed  the same following a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court Purushotham  Haridas &  Ors. Vs.  Amruth Ghee Co. Ltd., Guntur & Ors. [AIR 1961 AP 143].      The questions  is whether the view of the High Court is correct. Section  11 of  the  Act  provides  that  the  Land Acquisition  Officer   shall  enquire  into  the  respective interests of  the persons claiming, compensation or believed to have  an interest  therein and  shall make  an award; and under clause  (iii) of  sub-section (1)  apportion the  said compensation among  all persons  known  or  believed  to  be interested  in   land  of  whom  or  whose  claims,  he  has information  in   whether  or  not  they  have  respectively appeared before him.      Under Section  30  of  the  Act,  when  the  amount  of compensation has  been settled  under s.11,  if any  dispute arises as  to the  apportionment of  the same  or  any  part thereof or  as to  the persons  to whom the same or any part thereof is  payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision  of the Court. Under sub-section (2) of Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

31, if  there is  any dispute  as to  apportionment  of  the compensation, the  Collector shall  deposit  the  amount  of compensation, in  the Court to which reference under Section 18 would be submitted.      Thus, if could be seen that on making award under s.11, the Collector is enjoined to make a reference under s.30, if there is  any dispute  as to  the person entitled to receive the compensation  and the  apportionment thereof.  On making such reference, the Collector is further enjoined under s.31 to deposit  the amount  of the  compensation in the Court to which reference  under s.18  would be  submitted.  In  other words, on  deposit of  the amount into the court and pending decision of the reference, the liability of the State to pay interest thereon  ceases with  effect from  the date  of the deposit. Therefore,  the Reference Court as well as the High Court committed  an obvious  illegality in directing payment of interest  at 9% on the amount from the date of deposit by the Collector till the decision of the reference court under s.30. The  decision of  the High  Court of Andhra Pradesh is clearly illegal.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed and the direction to pay interest is set aside.