SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, July 03, 2024

Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2024 SCC OnLine Gau 526

†
In the High Court of Gauhati
(BEFORE KARDAK ETE, J.)

Phuntso Memba and Others

Versus
Secretary Through the Cabinet Secretary to the
Govt. of India and Others
WP(C)/97/2021
Decided on May 14, 2024
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen
Advocate for the Respondent : R.H. Nabam, Addl. Advocate General
M. Kato, DSGI.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
KARDAK ETE , J.:— Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for respondent Nos. 1
to 10 and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General for
respondent Nos. 11, 14, 15 & 16. None appears for respondent Nos. 12
& 13.
2. By instituting this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a
direction to the respondent authorities to provide 12% interest of the
land compensation w.e.f. from the date of possession or notification on
the market value of land and also for a direction to the respondent
authorities to pay hire/rent charges/damages from the date of the
actual possession i.e. w.e.f. 1959, in accordance with sections 30 (3),
80 and 93 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as LARR Act, 2013) Alternatively, the petitioners have
prayed for declaration of the acquisition proceedings, initiated by the
respondent authorities by issuing preliminary notification dated
03.06.2018, as illegal, on the ground of violation of fundamental and
constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 300A of the
Constitution of India.
3. The case of 33 petitioners, shorn of unnecessary details, is that
they are permanent residents of Rishing, Kopu, Lali and Bona villages
under Upper Siang District and are the owners of land measuring
108.08 Acres at Tuting area of Upper Siang District. It is projected that
initially the Indian Army had taken shelter in small plot of land in the
year 1959 to 1962 and thereafter, left the place for long period and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

again came back in the year 1986 and occupied the present land. Since
then, the said land is under the possession of Indian Army. As a result,
the petitioner had suffered for non-payment of land compensation for
almost four decades.
4. In the year 2009 vide Memo No. LM-50/2008, the authority issued
a notification for acquisition of land. Thereafter, on 13.02.2010, a final
notification was issued. However, the said acquisition proceedings got
lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. In the year 2015, the
petitioners have approached this Court by filing a writ petition which
was registered as WP (C) No. 319 (AP) 2015. The said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2015 with a direction to the Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, to look into the matter
immediately with serious concern and to settle the same as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law by taking into
consideration the letter/communication dated 20.11.2014 issued by the
Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District, within a period of 3
months.
5. The petitioners, after completion of 3 (three) months, when no
action was taken even after direction of this court, again approached
this Court by filing a writ petition being WP (C) 203 (AP) 2016,
wherein, this Court had directed the Defence Estate Officer, Jorhat,
Assam to issue appropriate communication to the Deputy
Commissioner, Upper Siang District for initiating land acquisition
proceedings within a period of 15 days. The respondent authorities had
failed to comply with the direction of this Court. A Contempt Petition
being Cont. Case (C) No. 26 (AP) 2017 was filed and thereafter, the
said contempt petition was disposed of with a further direction to
complete acquisition process within three months. Again, the
respondent authorities had failed to comply with the above order
resulting in filing of another Contempt Petition being Cont. Case (C) No.
39 (AP) 2018. While Cont. Case (C) No. 39 (AP) 2018 was pending
before this Court, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh had issued
Notification vide Memo No. LM-124/ACQ/2018, dated 03.06.2018 and
land acquisition award was made vide order No. YKLM-31/2019,
26.11.2019 by invoking urgency clause under section 40(1) of LARR
Act, 2013 and payment was made to the petitioners but it was found
that the petitioners were paid only to the value of said land measuring
around 108.08 Acres of land including only one year of interest without
including statutory benefits of interest from the date of possession of
the said land or notification.
6. The petitioners received remaining 20% of compensation of the
land in the month of March, 2020. The 80% of the compensation
amount was already paid in the year, 2019 prior to release of 20% in
terms of section 40 of the LARR Act, 2013. It is contended that since
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the respondent authorities had failed to provide the statutory benefits

of interest for past possession of the said land, the petitioners
submitted representation on 27.07.2020 to the Addl. Deputy
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, the Defence Estate Officer,
Itanagar by stating that the petitioners have accepted the amount of
land compensation albeit with protest against non-payment of interest
accrued. The Defence Estate Officer, Itanagar, vide letter No.
AC/57/TUTING/ACQ/VOL-VII/93, dated 22.12.2020 has rejected the
said representation.
7. It is contended that the respondent authorities had given interest
of past possession of land only for one year in violation of Sections 30
(3) and 80 of the LARR Act, 2013 as the petitioners are entitled for
interest which is statutory benefits w.e.f. 2009, when the notification
for the acquisition had been issued.
8. It is contended that the petitioners were made to run from pillar
to post since the year, 1986 and some of the petitioners' father expired
in the meantime. Therefore, right to property of the petitioners cannot
be taken away except in accordance with the law and since the
statutory benefits have not been granted to the petitioners, said
acquisition proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, this
present writ petition.
9. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that
the petitioners have approached the respondent authorities for grant of
interest, a statutory benefits, of the past possession from the date of
possession or notification, however, the Defence Estate Officer has
illegally rejected the claim of the petitioners. She submits that the
petitioners have also claimed not only interest as per the LARR Act,
2013 but have also claimed the rent from 1959 and it is undisputed
that the Army authorities are in possession of the land of the
petitioners since 1959 which is clearly evident from the stand of the
respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 9 in writ petition being WP (c) 203 (AP)
2016, a proceedings connected with the present case. She submits that
the army authorities have paid hire/rent charges to the land owners of
Bona village which is a similarly situated case. Therefore, the
petitioners would also be entitled for payment of hire/rent charges from
the Army authorities for past possession of the land of the petitioners.
10. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that the respondent
authorities had provided interest of past possession of the land only for
one year which is totally unfair and in violation of Section 30(3), 80 &
93 of the LARR Act, 2013. The petitioners are entitled for statutory
benefits like interest w.e.f. 2009 when the notification for acquisition
was issued and not only for one year. Therefore, she submits that the
respondent authorities may be directed to provide statutory benefits
i.e. 12% interest w.e.f. from the date of possession or notification on
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the market value of the land in accordance with sections 30 (3) and 80
of the LARR Act, 2013 and hire/rent charges/damages as per section 93
of LARR Act, 2013 w.e.f. the actual possession i.e. 1959.
11. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, has placed reliance of the
following Judgments:—
(i) Union of India v. Pushpavathi; reported in (2018) 3 SCC 28;
(ii) Chanabasappa v. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited; reported
in (2020) 11 SCC 370;
(iii) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda; reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 708;
(IV) Young Lai Association v. State of Mizoram; reported in (2017) 4
GLR 134;
(v) State of Maharastra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari; reported in (2016)
3 Mah LJ 457.
12. On the other hand, Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, submits that the
petitioners having not made any application for reference to the
appropriate authority under Section 64 of LARR Act, 2013, the writ
petition is not maintainable as the act provides for an alternative and
efficacious remedy.
13. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, while referring to the affidavit-in-
opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9, submits
that the Army authorities initiated the acquisition of land measuring
108.08 acres based on the “Land Transfer Agreement and No objection
certificate” issued by the rightful land owners. The petitioners have not
submitted any supporting documents regarding possession of their land
by army during 1959 to 1962 and in 1986. The notification issued vide
Commissioner, Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh dated
05.10.2009 and dated 13.02.2010 issued in LA Act, 1894 for
acquisition of land measuring 136.30 acres was issued without sanction
of the appropriate Govt. and the same had lapsed and therefore, has no
legality at this stage. In this connection, this Hon'ble High Court, vide
order dated 27.01.2017 passed in WP (C) 203 (AP)2016 has also
acknowledged the fact that the preliminary and the final notification
issued vide 05.10.2009 and dated 13.02.2010 issued for acquisition of
land measuring 136.30 acres as per LA Act, 1894 had lapsed.
14. Mr. Kato, learned DSGI, submits that in compliance to the
Hon'ble High Court, order dated 27.01.2017 passed in WP (C) 203 (AP)
2016, the land acquisition proceedings of the land in question has been
completed and payment of 100% compensation was made to the ex-
land owners. The Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang district, Yingkiong
calculated/estimated the total compensation for an amount of Rs.
9,71,02,746/- including 12% additional compensation i.e. Rs.
52,48,797/- as per the proviso of Section 30(3) of the LARR Act, 2013.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the estimated cost of Rs. 9,71,02,746/- assessed by the

Deputy Commissioner, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter
No. 201/646/A/ACQ/EC/10.05.2018 amended vide Corrigendum No.
dated 29.11.2018 had accorded sanction for acquisition of land
measuring 108.08 acres at Tuting, invoking urgency clause under
section 40 of the LARR Act, 2013. The Deputy Commissioner, Upper
Siang district, Yingkiong published notification under section 11 of the
LARR Act, 2013 on 03.06.2018 invoking urgency clause under section
40 of LARR Act, 2013. As per demand made by the Deputy
Commissioner, Upper Siang district, Government of India, Ministry of
Defence had deposited 80% of land compensation (including 12% addl.
compensation) to the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang district,
Yingkiong on dated 11.12.2018. Accordingly, the land measuring
108.08 acres at Tuting were taken over on 26.11.2019. Thereafter, the
Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang district vide their letter No. YKLM-
31/2019 dated 10.02.2020 endorsing copy of the Award in respect of
land measuring 108.08 acres at Tuting, requested DEO Itanagar to
release balance 20% of land compensation. Accordingly, DEO Itanagar,
vide Defence Cheque bearing No. 405962 dated 09.03.2020 deposited
the balance 20% of land compensation to the office of Deputy
Commissioner, Upper Siang district, Yingkiong, Arunachal Pradesh on
17.03.2020. As such, full 100% compensation as awarded by the
Collector has been deposited including 12% addl. Compensation as per
the proviso of Section 30(3) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and as such claims
for further interest cannot be accepted.
15. Mr. Kato, learned DSGI, submits that the hiring process for land
measuring 73.96 acres at Bona village, w.e.f. 2010 to 2020 were
initiated as per willingness & No Objection Certificate received from the
rightful land owners. But, in the instant case, no records like lease
agreement/NOC regarding possession of land measuring 108.08 acres
at Tuting by Indian Army since 1959 are available with this office.
Therefore, the petitioners are not entiled for any hire/rent charges or
damages.
16. Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, submits that
the acquired land of the petitioners is actually agriculture land. As per
the claims based on records the Indian Army occupied the land in the
year, 1986 and the compensation was only paid in the year, 2019 with
only one year interest. He submits that since the first notification for
the land acquisition was published in 2009, the petitioners are seeking
12% interest as per LARR Act, 2013 which may be considered by this
Hon'ble Court in accordance with law.
17. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record.
18. The petitioners are the land owners of an area of 108.08 Acres of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

land at Tuting in Upper Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh. The

acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year, 2009 under Land
acquisition Act, 1894 (now repealed) by issuing a notification for
acquisition of the land for Indian Army. The possession of the land,
according to the petitioners, was taken in the year, 1959. It appears
that the actual occupation of the land was in the year, 1986 as the
respondent authorities have not seriously disputed the same except
with vague response to that effect. The acquisition proceedings could
not be completed as the same got lapsed on coming into force of LARR
Act, 2013.
19. The land of the petitioners has been acquired finally under LARR
Act, 2013 by an award dated 26.11.2019 for a total compensation
amount of Rs. 9,71,02,746/-. It is noticed that the land has been
acquired by invoking the urgency clause under Section 40(1) of the
LARR Act, 2013. It is also noticed that additional compensation on the
market value and solatium under Section 30 of LARR Act, 2013 have
been provided to the petitioners.
20. The grievances of the petitioners, as noted herein above, are for
providing statutory benefits i.e. 12% interest w.e.f. from the date of
possession or notification on the market value of the land and hire/rent
charges/damages under Section 30(3), 80 and 93 of the LARR Act,
2013.
21. In order to appreciate and analyse the issue, it would be
apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of LARR Act, 2013.
22. Section 30 provides which is produced herein below:—
“30…Award of solatium.-(1) The Collector having determined the
total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award,
impose a “Solatium amount equivalent to one hundred per cent. of
the compensation amount.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that
solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to
any person whose land has been acquired.
(2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the
particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of
the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under
section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum on such market
value for the period commencing on and from the date of the
publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study
under sub-section (2) of section 4, in respect of such land, till the
date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of
the land, whichever is earlier.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. Section 40 relates to power in case of urgency to acquire land in

certain cases, which is reproduced herein below:—
“40…Special powers in case of urgency to acquire land in certain
cases:
(1) In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so
directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made,
may, on the expiration of thirty days from the publication of
the notice mentioned in section 21, take possession of any land
needed for a public purpose and such land shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.
(2) The powers of the appropriate Government under sub-section
(1) shall be restricted to the minimum area required for the
defence of India or national security or for any emergencies
arising out of natural calamities or any other emergency with
the approval of Parliament : 24 Provided that the Collector shall
not take possession of any building or part of a building under
this subsection without giving to the occupier thereof at least
forty-eight hours notice of his intention to do so, or such longer
notice as may be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier
to remove his movable property from such building without
unnecessary inconvenience.
(3) Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), the Collector shall tender payment of eighty
per cent. of the compensation for such land as estimated by
him to the person interested entitled thereto.
(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1),
subsection (2) or sub-section (3) are applicable, the
appropriate Government may direct that any or all of the
provisions of Chapter II to Chapter VI shall not apply, and, if it
does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 19 in
respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication
of the preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of section
11.
(5) An additional compensation of seventy-five per cent. of the
total compensation as determined under section 27, shall be
paid by the Collector in respect of land and property for
acquisition of which proceedings have been initiated under sub
-section (1) of this section:
Provided that no additional compensation will be required
to be paid in case the project is one that affects the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security and strategic
interests of the State or relations with foreign States”.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. Section 80 provides as under:—

“80. Payment of interest.-When the amount of such
compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession
of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest
thereon at the rate of nine per cent. per annum from the time of so
taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:
Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not
paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on
which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent.
per annum shall be payable from the date or expiry of the said
period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof
which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such
expiry”.
25. Section 93 provides that completion of acquisition not
compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed,
which is reproduced herein below:—
“93. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed.-(1) The
appropriate Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2)
Whenever the appropriate Government withdraws from any such
acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of
compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in
consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and
shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all
costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the
proceedings under this Act relating to the said land”.
26. On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 30(3), it provides
that in addition to the value of land provided under Section 26, the
Collector shall, in every case, award and amount calculated at the rate
of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing
and from the date of publication of the notification of the Social Impact
Assessment Study under Sub section 2 of Section 4 in respect of such
land till the date of award of taking possession of the land whichever is
earlier.
27. Section 80 provides for payment of interest when the amount of
such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, the collector shall pay the amount awarded with
interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the time of so taking
possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. It also provides
that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited
within the period of one year from the date on which the possession is
taken, interest @ 15% per annum shall be payable from the date or
expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of
expiry. On a reading of the above provisions, I am of the view that
same would not be applied in the facts and circumstances of the
present case inasmuch as, non-payment of compensation before taking
possession of the land would not arise as the acquisition and award
have been made when the army authorities were already under the
possession. An Award was made on 26.11.2019 by paying 80% of
compensation and the 20% payment was made in the month of March
2020 with an interest of one year in terms of the section 40 of LARR
Act, 2013. However, since the first notification was issued in the year
2009 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (which had lapsed), the
petitioners may be entitled to the interest from 2009, only for the
reason that the petitioners have been provided an interest for one year
and no other.
28. Section 93 provides for a completion of acquisition which would
not be compulsory, but the compensation to be awarded where not
completed. It provides that the appropriate govt shall be at liberty to
withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not
been taken. It further provides that whenever the appropriate govt.
withdraws from any such acquisition, the collector shall determine the
amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in
consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder and shall
pay such amount to the persons interested together with or cost
reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under
the Act relating to the said land. This provision seeks to provide that
the appropriate govt can withdraw from the land acquisition before
taking actual possession and the collector shall determine the amount
of compensation due for damage suffered by the owner. Thus, this
provision also would not be applicable in the present case as the
authority has not withdrawn the acquisition rather the acquisition has
been completed invoking the urgency clause under Section 40 of the
LARR Act for the Army authority by determining the compensation and
payment has been made to the petitioners.
29. Now, reference may be made to the case laws relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
30. In the case of Pushpavathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:—
“34. Similarly, the reference to the Court under Section 18 is
made by the Collector only when there is a dispute as to the
measurement of the land or to the amount of the compensation or as
to the person(s) to whom the compensation is payable and lastly,
regarding the apportionment of the compensation amongst the
persons interested in claiming compensation.
35. In our considered opinion, the dispute relating to non-award
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of the interest to the landowners, whether under Section 28 or

Section 34 is not a dispute, which falls under Sections 18 or/and 28-
A(3) of the Act. In other words, a reference under Section 18 can
only be made by the Collector in respect of those issues, which are
specified under Section 18.
36. A dispute relating to non-award of interest payable to the
landowners under Section 28 or/and Section 34 of the Act is not
specified under Section 18 and hence it is not capable of being
referred by the Collector to the civil court under Section 18 of the
Act. It is also for the reason that payment of interest is statutory in
character and being statutory, it is mandatory for payment once
conditions specified under Sections 28 or/and 34 are fulfilled”.
31. In the case of Chanabasappa (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:—
“8. In R.L. Jain v. DDA4 this Court held that in a case where the
landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary
notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is open to the landowner to
recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal
proceedings. Therefore, he is only entitled to get rent or damage for
use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession
of the property. When possession is taken prior to issuance of
preliminary notification, the Collector may also determine the rent or
damages. This Court has observed thus : (SCC pp. 93-94, para 18)
“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.”
9. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. LAO5 this Court has laid down :
(SCC p. 144, para 6)
“6. It is, as we see it, clear from Section 23(1-A) that the
starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on

the market value, is the date of publication of the Section 4
notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date
of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier.
In the present case, possession of the land having been taken
prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification, that terminal
is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the
award. The High Court, therefore, was in no error in holding that
the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation under
Section 23(1-A) for the period 8-3-1991 to 6-2-1993.”
10. In LAO v. Karigowda6 it was observed that no interest can be
claimed for the period prior to the Section 4 notification. Where
possession has been lost prior to initiation of the acquisition
proceedings, the landowners can claim rent or damages before the
Collector. Following observations have been made in Karigowda6 :
(SCC pp. 744-45, para 101)
“101. As is evident from the above dictum of the court, despite
dispossession, the title continues to vest in the landowners and it
is open for the landowners to take action in accordance with law.
Once notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been issued
and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in
terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of
any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section
16 of the Act. The court, in situations where possessions have
been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act, can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or
damage that the owners of land would be entitled to, the
provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the
court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This
was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R.L. Jain
case4 as well. This legal question is no more open to controversy
and stands settled by this Court. We would follow the view taken
and accept the contention of the appellant State that the
Reference Court as well as the High Court7 could not have
granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a date
anterior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
However, following the dictum of the Bench in R.L. Jain case4, we
direct the Collector to examine the question of payment of
rent/damages to the claimants, from the period when their
respective lands were submerged under the backwater of the
river, till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4
(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the
statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.”
32. In the case of Karigowda (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has held as under:—

“106. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these appeals
in part, with the following directions:
(i) The appeals filed by the State are partially allowed. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the
claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of
Rs. 2,30,000 per acre for the wet/garden land and at the rate
of Rs. 1,53,400 per acre for the dry land.
(ii) The claimant landowners would be entitled to get statutory
benefits on the enhanced compensation under Sections 23(1-
A) and 23(2) of the Act and interest in terms of Section 28 of
the Act.
(iii) Since the appeals filed by the State have been partially
allowed by this Court, we hope that the Government shall grant
compensation to all the interested persons whose lands have
been acquired under the same notification and pay them
compensation in terms of this judgment without any further
delay.
(iv) Following the principle and the directions stated by this Court
in R.L. Jain case24, we grant liberty to the claimants to file
applications before the competent authority (State
Government/Collector concerned) to claim damages for their
dispossession from the lands owned by them as a result of
submerging, till the date of issuance of Notification under
Section 4 of the Act i.e. 4-4-2002. These applications may be
filed within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this
judgment. If such applications are filed we direct the
competent authority to consider the same sympathetically and
award such amounts to the claimants as may be payable in
accordance with law expeditiously. We make it clear that the
amounts, if already paid for this period, shall be adjusted.
(v) The direction of the High Court for payment of interest for the
period prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4
of the Act i.e. 4-4-2002 is hereby set aside and ordered to be
deleted.
(vi) The appeals are allowed to the above extent.
(vii) Parties to bear their own costs.
33. In the case of Young Lai Association (Supra), Division Bench of
this Court has held as under:—
“16. Question for consideration is whether in the event of such
failure on the part of the Collector in the discharge of statutory duty
as per mandate of section 23(1 A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 read
with section 15 of the said Act, what would be the remedy available
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to the affected person(s) interested. No doubt, he can avail the

remedy of section 18 of the LA Act and seek a reference. But having
regard to the objective of the two provisions coupled with the
compulsory nature of land acquisition, to our mind, it would be
highly unfair, unjust and untenable to restrict the aggrieved person
(s) interested only to a remedy under section 18. Such an aggrieved
person may approach the Collector concerned under section 13A of
the LA Act, 1894 whereunder the Collector can correct clerical or
arithmetical mistakes, etc., in making the award either on his own
motion or on an application of any person interested or a local
authority. We say this because awarding of interest under section 23
(1A) and awarding of solatium under section 23(2) is statutorily
mandated. It is automatic; once market value is determined, interest
and solatium thereon has to be granted. There is no question of any
long drawn argument or debate over the entitlement or on the
quantum of interest and solatium because these are statutorily
provided. Once the market value of land is determined by the
Collector, he has to apply the formula provided under the aforesaid
two provisions to arrive at the quantum of interest and solatium. If
there is omission on the part of the Collector to grant interest and
solatium while making the award, it would be a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, such an error or
mistake would come within the ambit of section 13A of the LA Act,
1894, which can be corrected by the Collector himself.
19. Now coming to the next question as to whether such a claim
can also be maintained in a writ petition, as already discussed
above, claim of interest and solatium is a statutory right of the
person interested and non-payment of such interest and solatium
would be a failure on the part of the Collector to discharge statutory
duty vested on him. If there is such failure on the part of the public
authority in the discharge of statutory duty, certainly a writ court
would be well within its jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to
compel the public authority to discharge his statutory duty. The fact
that alternative remedy is available under sections 13A and 18 of the
LA Act, 1894 would not debar the writ court from exercising such
jurisdiction in an appropriate case”.
34. In the case of State of Maharastra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari
(Supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under:—
“31. If the landowner is divested the possession of his land by the
Collector or the State Government illegally or de hors the provisions
of the said Act, it is open for him to recover such possession and
claim rent and damages for the use and occupation for the period for
which the State Government has illegally retained the possession of
the land. To take care of such situation, certain administrative
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

circulars have been issued by the State Government for payment of

rental compensation, in accordance with which the claimants are
paid for the period for which they are deprived of the benefits of the
land till the notification is published under section 4(1) of the said
Act. We are not concerned in this matter about the rental
compensation or the damages to which the claimants are entitled, if
the possession of the land is de hors the provisions of the Act.
“32. Keeping in view the entire scheme of the Land Acquisition
Act and the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of
R.L. Jain and Lila Ghosh, cited supra, the position of law can be
summarized as under:
(i) If the possession of the land under acquisition is taken under
section 16 of the said Act i.e. after an award is made by the
Collector under section 11 therein, the interest would be
payable under section 34 from the date of passing of the award
and we are in agreement with such a view expressed by the
Division Bench of this Court (S/Shri N.V. Dabholkar and M.G.
Gaikwad, JJ.) in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra
Narayanrao Gaikwad, 2007 MhLJ OnLine 2 2008 (1) BCR 839.
(ii) The interest as provided under section 34 of the said Act shall
start running from the date of possession, only if the
possession is taken by the Collector in exercise of his powers
under section 17 of the said Act which would obviously be after
issuance of notice under section 9(1) of the said Act. If the
possession is taken under section 17, the interest payable
under section 34 of the said Act shall start running from the
ate of possession and not from the date of award.
(iii) Where the possession of the land under acquisition is taken
prior to issuance of notification under section 4(1), then there
would be no question of invoking the urgency clause under
section 17 of the said Act and the interest under section 34
shall start running from the date of passing of the award.
(iv) The starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount
of additional component under section 23(1-A) of the said Act
at the rate of twelve per centum per annum is the date of
publication of the notification under section 4 of the said Act,
and the terminal point is either the date of the award or the
date of taking possession, whichever is earlier.
(v) We hold that in none of the eventualities, the claimant shall
be entitled to interest under section 34 of the said Act from the
date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the
said Act.
(vi) There is no overlapping of the benefits under section 23(1-A)
and section 34 of the said Act. The terminal points under
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

section 23(1- A) are the starting points under section 34 of the

said Act and both the provisions operate in different fields.
(vii) We express our full agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench of this Court in Lalitkumar Shah's case, cited
supra, that in a case where possession is taken prior to
issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the said Act, the
interest under section 34 shall start running from the date of
award only.
(viii) We also express our full agreement with the view taken by
the Division Bench of this Court in Lalitkumar Shah's case,
cited supra, that the decision of the Division Bench in the case
of Jafarali Mithabhai Hirani v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3)
All MR 779, and the similar view taken in other matters is no
longer a good law”.
35. On careful consideration of the above judgments, this court finds
that all the decisions are with regard to the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, cannot be applied fully in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. However, the laid down principles
and propositions could be applied so far as the rent/damages are
concerned.
36. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioners, has
vehemently urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chanabasappa (Supra), held that under Section 48 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, the land owners are entitled to rent/damages. Since the
section 93 of LARR Act, 2013 is pari materia with the section 48 of Land
Acquisition, 1894, the petitioners are entitled for interest, hire/rent
charges/damages under Section 93 of LARR Act, 2013.
37. Having considered the above submission, this Court finds it too
tenuous to accept as the section 93 of LARR Act, 2013 seeks to provide
a liberty to withdraw the proceedings and before taking actual
possession and the authority to determine the amount of compensation
due for damage suffered by the owner. In the instant case, though the
possession has been taken before the acquisition, there is no question
of damages to be determined under Section 93 of LARR Act, 2013.
However, the petitioners may be entitled for the hire/rent charges for
the land which has been under the possession till the notification for
acquisition was initiated which may be permissible in view of the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the cases (supra).
38. It is also taken note of the fact that the present acquisition has
been made by invoking section 40 of LARR Act, 2013. As per the said
provision, 80% compensation has been paid to the petitioners
thereafter, additional compensation on market value under Section 30
(3) of the Act has also been provided to the petitioners. Now, the issue
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is as to whether the petitioners shall be entitled to 12% interest per

annum on the market value for the period commencing from the date of
publication of notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under
sub section 2 of section 4 in respect of the land till the date of award
whichever is earlier.
39. In strict sense, since the acquisition has been made by invoking
urgency clause under Section 40 of the LARR Act, 2013, in my view,
the petitioners would not be entitled as it requires that the interest
shall be from the date of publication of the notification of Social Impact
Assessment study. There is nothing on record to show that any
publication of notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under
sub section 2 of section 4 in respect of the land has been made.
However, considering that the land of the petitioners has been taken
possession in the year 1986 (though petitioners claim to be since
1959), the petitioners would be entitled for interest from the date of
first notification i.e. 2009, only on the reason that they have been
provided interest for one year.
40. The learned DSGI has sought to dispute the date of possession
by the Army authority and also has raised the issue of maintainability
of the present writ petition. On consideration of the materials on record,
the possession appears to be since 1986 and the grievance of the writ
petitioners is for providing interest, hire/rent charges as well as
damages which alleged to have not been provided to the petitioners in
accordance with LARR Act, 2013. Therefore, the submissions cannot be
accepted as the grounds of reference provided under Section 64 of
LARR Act, 2013 are completely different. In such view of the matter,
this Court is of the view that the writ petition is maintainable as the
claims of the petitioners are other than grounds provided under Section
64 of LARR Act, 2013, although whether the petitioners are entitled to
the relief sought for is different issue.
41. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the reference to the
authority under Section 64 is made by the Collector only when there is
a dispute as to the measurement of the land or to the amount of the
compensation or as to the person (s) to whom the compensation is
payable as well as regarding the apportionment of the compensation
amongst the persons interested in claiming compensation. The dispute
in the present case relates to non-award of the interest to the
landowners and claim of rent charges/damages. A reference under
Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 can only be made by the Collector in
respect of those issues which are specified thereunder. A dispute
relating to non-award of interest payable to the landowners is not
specified under Section 64 of the Act and hence it is not capable of
being referred by the Collector to the authority.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary

notification, it is open to the landowner to recover the possession of his
land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. Therefore, he is only
entitled to get rent or damage for use and occupation for the period the
Government retains possession of the property. When possession is
taken prior to issuance of preliminary notification, the Collector may
also determine the rent or damages.
It has been held in the above referred case, that 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, 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.
43. Reverting back to the present case, the grievances of the
petitioners are for grant of statutory benefits, i.e., 12% percent interest
on the market value of the land in accordance with Sections 30(3) and
Section 80 and hire/rent charges/damages in terms of section 93 of the
LARR Act, 2013. It is noticed that under section 30(3) it is provided
that in addition to the market value of the land provided under section
26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at
the rate of twelve per cent, per annum on such market value for the
period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the
notification of the Social Impact Assessment Study under sub-section
(2) of section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is
earlier. It is seen that the land measuring 108.08 acres at Tuting, was
acquired for the Indian Army, invoking urgency clause under section-40
of LARR Act, 2013 and as such, no notification of the Social Impact
Assessment Study was published by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.
Further, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence has provided additional
compensation on the market value with interest @ 12% only for one
year to the petitioners under section 30(3) of LARR the Act, 2013.
Thus, the petitioners, in my considered view, would not be entitled for
interest as claimed by them, however, would be entitled for interest
from the date of first notification in the year 2009.
44. Regard being had to the claims by the petitioners under section
93 of the LARR Act, 2013, this Court finds that section 93 of LARR Act,
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Printed For: Kanishk Chopra, National Law University, Dwarka
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2013 as noted above seeks to provide a liberty to withdraw the

proceedings and before taking actual possession and the authority to
determine the amount of compensation due for damage suffered by the
owner. In the instant case, though the possession has been taken
before the acquisition, in my view, question of damages to be
determined would not arise under Section 93 of LARR Act, 2013.
However, considering the peculiar fact of this present case, the
petitioners may be entitled for the hire/rent charges for the land which
has been under the possession till the notification for acquisition was
initiated which may be permissible in view of the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme court in the cases (supra).
45. In view of the discussions made herein above, this court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief
sought for in terms of the provisions of sections 30(3), 80 and section
93 of LARR Act, 2013. Thus, this court is not inclined to grant the same
under the aforesaid provisions. However, in view of the principle of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court direct the Deputy
Commissioner/Collector to examine and consider the questions of
payment of rent/damages to the petitioners from the period when their
respective lands were taken possession, i.e. 1986, till the date of
issuance of the notification in year 2009 and the interest from the first
notification in 2009 till the award on the additional compensation only
for the reason that the petitioners have been already provided interest
for one year. Such exercise shall be completed within a period 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
46. Writ petition stands disposed in terms above.
No order as to costs.
———
†
Itanagar Bench

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.