Supreme Court of India

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR CANAL v. VILAS EKNATH JADHAV AND OTHERS

Land owner dispossessed before Section 4(1) notice may recover possession or claim rent or damages

The Court allowed the appeals and modified the High Court's judgment. It held that where a landowner was dispossessed before the preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the owner may recover possession by legal proceedings, and if possession is not recovered, is entitled to rent or damages for the period the Government retained possession.

Why it matters: It confirms the remedy of rent or damages for land taken over before a Section 4(1) notification, following R.L. Jain (D) by LRs v. DDA.

Summary written with AI and checked against the judgment text. It is not part of the judgment; read the full text or PDF.

Headnote

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: Dispossession of land owner prior to notification u/s 4(1) A B c - Damages - Held: In case the land owner has been dispossessed prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification uls 4(1) of the Act, it will be open to such land the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceeding - In case the possession is not recovered, he would be entitled to rent or damages for use and occupation for the period Government retained possession of the properly. R.L. Jain (DJ by LRs. versus D.D.A. and Others 2004(2) SCR

Headnote as published with the judgment in the Supreme Court Reports dataset; it is not part of the judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Case number: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2919/2013
Date of judgment: 2 April 2013
Petitioner / Appellant: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR CANAL
Respondent: VILAS EKNATH JADHAV AND OTHERS
Neutral citation: 2013 INSC 202
SCR citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 493
Bench: S.S. NIJJAR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
CNR: ESCR010004122013
Result: Allowed

Download PDF Find it on the Supreme Court SCR site Get the signed copy

Signed copy from the Supreme Court. On the court's Judgments page, open the Case Number tab, choose the case type Civil Appeal, enter the case number 2919 and the year 2013, solve the captcha, and open the PDF in the Judgment column. Or use the Judgment Date tab with 02-04-2013 as both dates. The court's page asks for a captcha, so this step is yours.

This is the Supreme Court Reports (SCR) copy, with citation and headnotes, obtained through the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC-BY-4.0, Dattam Labs) and unchanged. To find it on the Supreme Court's own SCR site (scr.sci.gov.in), enter the neutral citation 2013 INSC 202 in its Neutral Citation field. It is not the plain signed judgment and not a certified copy; for a certified copy use the Certified Copy service on sci.gov.in. The text below is extracted automatically and may contain errors, and the result label is read from the closing lines of the judgment, so it can occasionally be wrong. The PDF is the authoritative version.

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 493

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR

CANAL

VILAS EKNATH JADHAV AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 2919 of 2013 etc.)

APRIL 02, 2013

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:

Dispossession of land owner prior to notification u/s 4(1)

- Damages - Held: In case the land owner has been dispossessed prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification uls 4(1) of the Act, it will be open to such land D owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceeding - In case the possession is not recovered, he would be entitled to rent or damages for use and occupation for the period Government retained possession of the properly.

R.L. Jain (DJ by LRs. versus D.D.A. and Others 2004(2)

SCR 1156 =AIR 2004 SC 1904 - relied on.

Case Law Reference:

2004 (2) SCR 1156 relied on para 1

CIVIi APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2919 of 2013.

·F

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2009 of the G High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2458 of 2009.

WITH

493 H

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A C.A. No. 2920 of 2013.

Babu Marlapalle, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari for the Appellant.

B Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.

The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted.

2. In spite of service, none has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the persons whose land was acquired.

Mr. Babu Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for the D appellant submits that the judgment of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in R.L Jain(D) by LRs.

versus D.D.A. and Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1904. He submits that the appellant had taken possession of the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 3.6.2001 whereas the Notification E under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 30th December, 2006.

Undoubtedly, the aforesaid respondents would have been entitled to interest on the statutory benefits under the Act calculated from the date when the Notification under Section 4 F of the Act was issued. However, for the period between 3.6.2001 and 30.12.2006, they would only be entitled to rental compensation. On the rental compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents would also be entitled to the interest at Bank rate. In support of this, he relies G on observations made in paragraph 18 of the judgment in R.L.

Jain(D) supra. In the aforesaid paragraph, this Court has observed as follows :- "18.ln a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary Notification under H Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR, MADHAMESHWAR 495 CANAL v. VILAS EKNATH JADHAV possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest A with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner 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 s 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 land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land c owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of S.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."

3. The aforesaid observations make it abundantly clear that . D in case the land owner has been dispossessed prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification under Section 4(1} of the Act, it will be open to such land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceeding.

In case the possession is not recovered, he would be entitled E to rent or damages for use and occupation for the period Government retained possession of the property.

4. These observations fully support the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the appellant. F 5. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is modified to that extent.

R.P. Appeals allowed.