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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  993 of 2008

PETITIONER: TENNETI KAMESAM

RESPONDENT: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2008

BENCH: ALTAMAS KABIR & J.M. PANCHAL

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT                                         O R D E R

                               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 993 OF 2008                          [Arising out of SLP(C)No.4069 of 2007]

       Delay condoned.         Leave granted.         In this appeal the appellant has questioned the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court with  regard to the Award passed in respect of the land forming the subject matter of the appeal.         The Land Acquisition Collector has, while making the Award, deducted one third of th e  compensation awarded towards developmental charges, although it will be seen from the materi als on  record that the land in question was, in fact, situated within a developed area.         Aggrieved by the aforesaid deduction in the Collector’s order, the appellant has fil ed two  statutory appeals  under  Section  54 of  the Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894, before the High Court.  While disposing of the two appeals by its imp ugned  judgment, the High Court held that the deduction made was not unreasonable and it also held  that the  appellant before us would be entitled to claim interest not from the date when possession of  the lands  had been taken over by the respondent prior to issuance of the Section 4 notice, but from th e date of the  Section 4 notice itself, namely, 17th May, 1989, whereas  interest had been granted in the A ward from  11th July, 1987, i.e. date on which possession have been taken over by the respondent.         Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to agree with  the High  Court on both counts.  We are also unable to agree with the Award of the Collector as far as  one-third  deduction of the compensation amount is concerned.         In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no dispute with r egard to the  fact that the land in question was situated in a well-developed town surrounded by several s tructures,  residential buildings and other commercial establishments, apart from being located near a r ailway  station and other facilities.  It is, therefore, evident that the land was already situated  in a developed  area and the question of deduction of development charges did not, therefore, arise.

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

       As far as the second ground is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant referred  to and relied  on a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of R.L. Jain(D) by LRs Vs. DDA and others,  [2004(4)  SCC 79], wherein in paragraph 18 it has been indicated as follows:- "18.    In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to  the issuance of preliminary  notification under  Section 4(1) of  the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land  but the title thereof continues to vest with the landowner.  It is  fully open for the landowner 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 landowner is  entitled while determining the compensation amount payable  to the landowner for the acquisition of the property.  The  provisions of Section 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."         Having  regard to the aforesaid decision and also having regard to the fact that in  our view also  the appellant would be entitled to damages for the period which is not covered by the Notifi cation but  during which period the possession of the land in question have been taken over by the respo ndent, we   allow  the  appeal on both counts.             

       We,  accordingly, set aside that portion of the Award of the Land Acquisition Collec tor, which  provides for deduction of one-third of the compensation amount towards development charges.   We also  direct that the Collector will compute the damages payable for the period between 11th July,  1987 till  17th May, 1989 and include the same in his Award and also grant interest in respect thereof.         The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.      There will be no ord ers as to  costs.