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

PETITIONER: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,GADAG SUB-DIVISION, GADAG

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MATHAPATHI BASAVANNEWWA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1995

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

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2492            1995 SCC  (6) 355  JT 1995 (6)   242        1995 SCALE  (5)39

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      An  interesting   question  has  been  raised  by  Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case.      The admitted  facts are  that the  petitioner had taken possession of  the lands  on 23.1.1971, but the notification under s.  4(1) of  the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ’the Act’) was  published in  the Gazette  on 2.8.1984. The award came  to   be  made  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  on 15.1.1986. The  question is  from what date the respondents- owners are  entitled to the benefit of s. 23(1-A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984.      Section 23(1-A) reads thus :      "23(1-A):  In  addition  to  the  market      value of  the land,  as above  provided,      the court  shall in  every case award an      amount calculated  at the rate of twelve      per centum  per  annum  on  such  market      value for  the period  commencing on and      from the  date of the publication of the      notification  under   Section  4,   sub-      section (1),  in respect of such land to      the date  of the  award of the Collector      or the  date of taking possession of the      land whichever is earlier."                           (emphasis supplied)      Learned counsel  contended that conjoint reading of the dates of notification and making of award would connote that taking   possession    referable   under   the   expressions "commencing on  and from  the date  of  publication  of  the notification" and  "whichever is earlier" would be relatable to the  date of the notification published under s. 4(1). of the Act  and the  date  of  passing  of  the  award  by  the Collector and not anterior to the date of publication of the notification under s.4(1). Therefore, the owners of the land are not  entitled to  additional amount  at 12  per cent per

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

annum of the compensation commencing from the date of taking possession till  date of  publication  of  the  notification under s.4(1). We find no force in the contention.      The  object   of  introducing  Section  23(1-A)  is  to mitigate the  hardship caused  to the owner of the land, who has been  deprived of  the enjoyment  of the  land by taking possession from  him and  using it  for the  public purpose, because of  considerable  delay  in  making  the  award  and offering payment  thereof. To obviate such hardship, Section 23(1-A) was  introduced and  the Legislature  envisaged that the owner  of the  land is  entitled to  12 per  cent  annum additional  amount   on  the   market  value  for  a  period commencing on  and from  the date  of the publication of the notification under  s. 4(1)  of the  Act in  respect of such land up  to the  date of  the award  of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. At times,  after publication  of the  notification under  s. 4(1),  by   invoking  power   of  urgency  under  s.  17(4), possession is  taken before making the award. The additional amount  at  12%  per  annum  was  intended  to  be  paid  as compensation from the date of taking possession.      But  strict   construction  leads   to  unjust  result, hardship to the owner and defeats legislative object. Take a case like  one in  hand. Possession  was taken  long  before publication of  the notification. In the meanwhile the owner was deprived  of enjoyment  of his property. In other words, 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 compensation  from the date of  taking possession  till date  of the  award, though possession was  taken before  the notification under s. 4(1) was published.  The expression "whichever is earlier" has to be to  be construed  in that backdrop and the claimant would be entitled  to additional  amount from  the date  of taking possession.      In this case, since advance possession was taken before the publication  of notification  under s.  4(1), which  was never questioned  by the  owners in  a  court  of  law,  the claimants, by  necessary implication  are  entitled  to  the payment of the additional amount by way of compensation from the date of taking over the possession for loss of enjoyment of the  land. A  different situation  may  arise  where  the claimants themselves  may question  the notification and its invalidity is upheld by the court. Thereunder, the claimants may not  be entitled  to the  additional compensation  since they are  not willing  to surrender the possession under the notification  and  the  State  did  not  in  law  come  into possession under the notification referred to in s. 23 (1A).      Therefore, we  are of  the considered  view that though the notification  under s.  4(1)  was  issued  after  taking possession of the acquired land from the owners of the land, the owners  of the  land would  be entitled,  in the case at hand, to  additional amount  at 12  per cent  per  annum  of market value  from the  date  of  taking  possession  though notification under s. 4(1) was published later.      The petition is, therefore, dismissed.