BALWAN SINGH & ORS.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.

                        [2016] 2 S.C.R. 163



                    BALWAN SINGH & ORS.                                A
                                v.
          LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 1867-1872 of2009)
                        MARCH 09, 2016
                                                                     B
 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.]
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4(1) - Interest for the period
from the date of possession to the date of notification uls.4(1) of
the Act - Entitlement - Held: Land owner is not entitled to interest
under the Act - However, he is entitled to get rent or damages for
use and occupation for the period the Government retained C
possession of the property - In the interest of justice, 15% awarded
by way of damages from the date when the land owners were dis-
possessed till the date of Notification u!s.4(1) of the Act.
     Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1. This Court in the case of Madislzetti Bala Ramu/        D
took the vi.ew that it may not be proper to remand the matter to
the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which
the appellants therein would be entitled for the period during
which they remained out of p.ossession and hence, in the interest
of justice, this Court directed that additional interest at the rate   E
of15% per annum on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition
Collector, shall be paid for the period between the date of dis-
possession and the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act. Following the said view taken by this Court, the respondents
are directed to award additional interest by way of damages, at
                                                                       F
the rate of 15% per annum for the period between 1.7.1984, the
date when the appellants were dis-possessed till 2.9.1993, the
date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. [Paras 2, 4)
[164-F-G; 165-Al
      RL. Jain (D) by Lrs. v. DDA & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 79:
      2004 (2) SCR 1156; Madishetti Bala Ramu/ (dead) by               G
      Lrs. v. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650:
      2007 (7) SCR 222; Tahera Khatoon & Ors. v. Revenue
      Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
      (2014) 13 sec 613 - relied on.
                                                                           ;   .
                                                                       H
                                163
164             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A                                Case Law Reference
   2904 (2) SCR 1156              relied on.                 Para 1
   2007 f'.7) SCR 222             relied on.                 Para 2
   (2014) 13 SCC .613             relied on.                 Para 3
         CNILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1867-
B· 1872 of2009
         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2007 of the High Court
   ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in RFA No. 329, 330, 332, 333, 334 and
   335 ofl997.
         Y. Prabhakara Rao, Adv. for the Appellant.
c        Suryanarayana Singh, AAG, Ms. Pragati Neekhara, Adv., with
   him for the Respondents.         ·
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            KURIAN, J. I. The short issue arising for consideration in this
D     appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period
      from the date of dispossession to the date ofNotification under Section
      4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short 'the Act'). That issue
      is no more res integra. Jn the case ofR.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. ODA
      & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 at paragraph 18, this Court has
      taken the view that the land owner is not entitled to interest under the
 E    Act. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled
      to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the
      Government retained possession of the property.
          2. Noticing the above position, this Court in the case ofMadishetti
   Bala Ramu! (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in
 F (2007)9 SCC 650, took the view that it may not be proper to remand the
   matter to the Collector to determine the amount of compensatiol) to
   which the appellants therein would be entitled for the period during which
   they remained out of possession and hence, in the interest ofjustice, this
   Court directed that additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on
 G the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, shall be paid for
   the period between the date of dis-possession and the date ofNotification
   under Section 4( I) of the Act.
           3. The said view was followed by this Court in the case ofTahera
      Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisiopal Officer/Land Acquisition Officer
      & Ors. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 613.
 H
     BALWAN SINGH v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR                                 165
                     . [KURIAN, J.]

         4. Following the above view taken by this Court, these appeals         A
  are disposed of directiRg the respondents to award additional interest by
  way of damages, at the rate of I 5% per annum for the period between
  1.7 .1984, the date when the appellants were dis-possessed till 2.9.1993,
. the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. .
       5. Needless to say that this compensation will be on the basis of B
 land value fixed by the Reference Court. The amount as above, shall be
 calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of
 three months from today.
        6. The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.
 Devika Gujral                                           Appeals disposed of.   c