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

PETITIONER: ASTEKAAR NAGANAATHA RAO & ORS.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LANDACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/01/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 160        JT 1996 (1)   108  1996 SCALE  (1)116

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1626 OF 1996           [Arising out of SLP [C] No.6975 of 1992]                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Around 300  acres  of  agricultural  land  situated  in Sambre   [Belgaum    Airport],   Balekundri,   Mutage   were requisitioned in  1942, possession thereof was taken in 1942 and the  court below  had put  the date on December 31,1942, for the  defence purposes,  viz., establishment of Air Force Station. The  notification under  Section 4  (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"] acquiring these lands  was   published  on   February  24,1983.   The   Land Acquisition Officer  [LAO]  determined  the  compensation  @ Rs.6,000/-per acre.  On reference,  the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.70,400/- per acre adopting the method of hypothetical  lay-out. The  High Court  in  the  impugned judgment made  in  MFA  Nos.1821/89  &  batch  remanded  the matters without  upholding the  hypothetical lay-out  giving reasons in  support thereof.  [When the lands are frozen for open  sale   the  hypothetical   lay-out  is  an  artificial embellishment to  award higher  compensation]. The  question would arise: Whether the lands other than the acquired land, were available  for sale  in the  open market. In 1942, when possession was taken as agricultural land for air field, the lands could not have been sold in 1942 for building purposes as hypothetical  for lay-out. The High Court was, therefore, right  in   rejecting  the   application  of   principle  of hypothetical lay-out which is but a figment.      In view  of the  fact that cases are pending for a long time, we  have suggested  to the  counsel for  the Union  of Inidia as  well as  for the  claimants to have a negotiation for settlement  of the amount. We are informed that pursuant to directions  of this  Court the  parties have  settled the amount at Rs.45,000/- per acre with solatium at 30% and also

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

entitlement of  additional amount  at 12%  per  annum  under Section 23[1-A]  of the Act, payable from the date of taking possession. The  only point  on which  the parties could not reach a consensus is the entitlement to payment of interest. It is  contended by  Shri Javali, the learned senior counsel that from  1942 no  amount as  rent has  been paid  and  now stated to  have been  paid partly  a sum for 1975-76 to 1982 and it  cannot be  considered to be lease amount. In view of the settlement  by the parties that the compensation payable to the  appellants is  Rs.45,000/- per acre, the question of determination  of   the   compensation   does   not   arise. Consequently, they  are also entitled to the compensation at that rate  and solatium at 30% and also additional amount at 12% under  Section 23[1-A] of the Act, as agreed upon by the parties, from  the date of taking possession which the Court has fixed,  viz., December  31,1942.  In  other  words,  the claimants would  be entitled  to the  additional amount from January 1,1943  till the date of publication of notification under  Section   4[1].  The   question   that   arises   for consideration is  from what date the appellants are entitled to interest.  The additional  affidavit filed  in this Court would show  that the  Tehsildar had  directed the  Union  of India payment  of rent to the owners of the land and to send the same  for the  period from  1975-76 to 1981-82. In other words,  upto   December  31,1982,   he  directed  a  sum  of Rs.2,60,683.98 to be sent. Accordingly, a demand draft dated January 2,1984  was sent  to the  Tehsildar. For the earlier period, no  record was available in their office. Therefore, no direction  for payment  for the said period was given. We agree that  it would  be difficult to decide whether payment of rent  was paid  for the  earlier period.  It would appear that the  Tehsildar  deducted  Rs.1,99,815.07  towards  land revenue and  a sum of Rs.46,174.05 was paid to the claimants towards rent.  That appropriation  appears to  be  obviously incorrect. They  could not  deduct the land revenue from the amount payable  to the appellants as rent. Consequently, the respondents are  liable to  pay the rent payable to the tune of Rs.2,60,683.98  for the above period. The Tehsildar shall accordingly make  over the  payment. Out of total amount, it is an  admitted case  that Rs.46,17,405/-  has already  been paid to  the respective persons. Giving credit to the amount already received,  the balance  amount shall  be paid to the land owners.      Since notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition  was   published  on   February  24,  1983,  the appellants are  entitled to  interest @ 9% for one year from that date  and on  expiry thereof,  they are entitled to the payment of  15% from  25th February  1984 till  the date  of deposit.      The appeals,  accordingly,  are  allowed  as  indicated above. No  costs. The  respondent are  directed to  pay  the amount within  a period  of six  months from the date of the receipt of this Order.