Land Acquisition Claim, Process PPT.pptx

Old Land Acquisition Act and New 2013 Act
Acquisition Process
Step-by-step procedure
Relevant Case Laws
Comparison Chart

1. LAND ACQUISITION CLAIMS PRESENTED BY ADVOCATE K. SRI BHARATHI

2. Government has a duty towards public work. For this most of the time they have to deal in construction. And for this they need land. And it is possible that at times the land they need is private property. In such a case the government’s power to take that land overpowers the individuals’ right over that property. The government can acquire private land for the purpose of public work. This is called LAND ACQUISITION .  Land Acquisition is simply the process by which the Government can acquire private land. This may include any other private property. It is usually done for the purpose of public work building infrastructure, urbanisation , development and industrialisation . Government can also acquire land for private firms for setting up factories or other industrial setups. Purchase of land  is a contract between willing buyer and willing seller, while in case of land Acquisition the land owner has no choice. This is the reason right to property is not a fundamental right.

3. Land acquisition by a state is rooted in the concept of EMINENT DOMAIN . As per this doctrine, the state can do anything in public interest. It is based on two latin political concepts - WELFARE OF PUBLIC IS PARAMOUNT - PUBLIC NECESSITY IS GREATER THAN PRIVATE NECESSITY The idea of Land Acquisition in India is based on Eminent Domain. The state has the right to acquire any private property for the public use. RIGHT TO PROPERTY WAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TILL 1979 WHEN THE 44TH AMENDMENT reduced it to a CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL RIGHT . As per the amendment, “no person shall be deprived of his/her property save by the authority of law”. Hence remedy in case of right to property in India is available through High court and not the supreme court. No law that deprives the right to property can be challenged. However as per the constitution, no land can be acquired by the state without compensation. LAND ACQUISITION IS A CONCURRENT SUBJECT

4. Also called Land Acquisition Act 2013, RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 is the main law that regulates land acquisition and establishes rules and regulations for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected people in India. The act REPLACED THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 . It is the principle law concerning land acquisition and compensation to the land owners. The law followed the massive industrialization and liberalization in the country. The law was brought in due to absence of cohesive law for compensation and fair rehabilitation. T he acid test is that what a willing buyer in a normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in a normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality. THE TEST IS NOT WHAT AN ANXIOUS BUYER WILL OFFER IN ORDER TO INFLATE THE MARKET VALUE. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE TO SIT IN THE ARM CHAIR OF THE SAID WILLING BUYER AND SEEK ANSWER.

5. 1894 ACT S.4 S.5A - 10 S.11,11A &15 S.18 S.17 & 23

6. detailed

7. unit Unit unit unit unit

8. RELEVANT SECTIONS 1894 ACT – SECTIONS 11 TO 30 2013 ACT – SECTIONS 23 TO 42 AND 64 TO 73 S.NO 1894 ACT 2013 ACT 1. S.11 – ENQUIRY AND AWARD BY COLLECTOR S.23 – ENQUIRY AND LAND ACQUISITION AWARD BY COLLECTOR 2. S.11A – PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN AWARD SHALL BE MADE – 2 YEARS S.25 - PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN AWARD SHALL BE MADE – 12 MONTHS 3. S.16 – POWER TO TAKE POSSESSION – AFTER AWARD S.38 - POWER TO TAKE POSSESSION – AFTER FULL PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION 4. S.23 – MATTERS FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE - 30% ADDITION TO THE MARKET VALUE IN ACQUISITION OF THE COMPULSORY NATURE S. 30 – AWARD OF SOLATIUM 5. S. 19 – COLLECTORS STATEMENT TO COURT S. 65 – COLLECTORS STATEMENT TO AUTHORITY

9. 4. S.18 – REFERENCE TO COURT –APPLICATION WITHIN 6 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF COLLECTOR’S AWARD S.64 - REFERENCE TO COURT – APPLICATION WITHIN 6 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF COLLECTOR’S AWARD – RIGHTS OF REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT - COLLECTOR TO REFER WITHIN 30 DAYS – IF FAILED, APPLICANT HIMSELF CAN APPLY 5. S.23 – DETERMINATION OF AWARD – 6 PARAMETERS – 30% ADDITION TO THE MARKET VALUE IN ACQUISITION OF THE COMPULSORY NATURE S.69 – DETERMINATION OF AWARD – S. 26 TO 30 PARAMETERS – 100% ADDITION TO THE MARKET VALUE IN ACQUISITION OF THE COMPULSORY NATURE 6. S.28 – COLLECTOR TO PAY INTEREST ON EXCESS COMPENSATION S.72 - COLLECTOR TO PAY INTEREST ON EXCESS COMPENSATION 7. S.28A – RE-DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AWARD OF THE COURT – APPLICATION WITHIN 3 MONTHS S.73 - – RE-DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AWARD OF THE COURT – WITHIN 3 MONTHS

10. S.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

11. S. 65 - Collector‘s statement to Authority OF 2013 ACT & S. 19 OF 1894 ACT ( 1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the Authority, in writing under his hand-- (a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon; (b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land; (c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under section 13, and the amount of compensation awarded under the provisions of this Act; (d) the amount paid or deposited under any other provisions of this Act; and (e) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. (2) The statement under sub-section  (1)  shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the persons interested respectively

12. S. 26 - DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE OF LAND BY COLLECTOR S. 26(1)(a) is the value specified in the statement of rates published under the STAMP LAW . S. 26(1)(c) is the consented amount of compensation. The figures to be taken under (a) and (c) are to be picked from other documents (statement of rates and consent award). They hardly require any application of mind or formation of opinion by the Collector. Under S. 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1, 2 and 4, the Collector is to find out the average sale price for a similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area by picking the highest 50% of the registered sale deeds and agreements to sell of the last 3 years in terms of sale price. This involves ministerial jobs of procuring the documents from the sub-registrar’s office, picking 50% amongst them which have the highest prices and making an average thereof. This does not involve application of mind or formation of opinion by the Collector except to the very limited extent of a) identifying similar type of land in a nearby village/vicinity area and b) the exercise contemplated under Explanation 4.

13. for Explanation 3, The insertion of Explanation 3 is yet another indication that the Collector has the power to look at material beyond (a), (b) and (c) of S. 26(1) for assessing and determining market value (unless specifically prohibited from doing so as is done by Explanation 3). Also, it is pertinent to note that Explanation 3 does not prohibit the Collector from considering compensation paid for land acquired under other Acts like the National Highways Act, 1956, the Railways Act, 1989, the Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885, etc. S. 26 (3) provides that in a situation where the criteria provided in S. 26(1) cannot be resorted to due to non-availability of registered sale deeds, etc., ‘ the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:’ This would mean that where the criteria provided under S. 26(1) cannot be resorted to, the Collector would have to instead take into consideration the price specified by the State Government.

14. S. 28. Parameters to be considered by Collector in determination of award In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Collector shall take into consideration— firstly , the MARKET VALUE as determined under section 26 and the award amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules; secondly , the DAMAGE sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing CROPS AND TREES which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly , the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by REASON OF SEVERING such land from his other land; fourthly , the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition INJURIOUSLY AFFECTING HIS OTHER PROPERTY, MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE, IN ANY OTHER MANNER, OR HIS EARNINGS;

15. fifthly , in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to CHANGE HIS RESIDENCE or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; sixthly , the damage (if any)  bona fide  resulting from DIMINUTION OF THE PROFITS of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 19 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land; and seventhly , any other ground which may be in the interest of EQUITY, JUSTICE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE AFFECTED FAMILIES

16. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asstt . Controller of Estate Duty, (1980) 2 SCC 1 P. 11 - it is well settled that in law the Collector's award under s.11 is nothing more than an OFFER of compensation made by the Government - It is impossible to accept the contention that no sooner the Collector has made his award under s.11 the right to compensation is destroyed or ceases to exist or is merged in the award, or what is left with the claimant is a mere right to litigate the correctness of the award. The claimant can litigate the correctness of the award because his right to compensation is not fully redeemed but remains alive which he prosecutes in Civil Court.

17. Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority, (2007) 7 SCC 614, (2007) 4 CTC 601 P.12 - The BURDEN is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award. 

18. Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745 P.10,11 & 23 - The BURDEN of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of plaintiff - there is no hard and fast rule that land and building must be valued as one unit. They can be separately assessed if the large portion of the land is lying vacant and is capable of better use - LEASEHOLD RIGHTS being limited in nature and entirely different from ownership right, a lessee is not entitled to the entire amount of compensation for the acquired land. 

19. R.B. Dealers (P) Ltd. v. Metro Railway, Kolkata, (2019) 20 SCC 658 the Collector has to determine the market value of the land as provided under  Section 26  of the Act. T he Collector has to determine the amount of compensation as per  Section 27  of the Act, which includes the market value of the land as well as the value of all assets attached to the land.  the Collector has to impose a “solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount, as per  Sections 29  and  30  of the 2013 Act - an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value. the final award declared by the Collector shall be in THREE PARTS/COMPONENTS , namely the amount of compensation (which shall include the market value of the land to be acquired and the value of the assets attached to the land); the solatium determined and payable under sub­section (1) of  Section 30  which shall be equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount (the market value + value of assets attached to the land) and the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value (as per sub­ section (3) of  Section 30  of the 2013 Act). All the three components would be independent which shall ultimately form part of the final award. 

20. T he solatium as contemplated under sub­section (1) of  Section 30  of the 2013 Act has to be calculated only on the market value plus the value of the assets attached to the land i.e. total compensation amount as determined as per  Sections 26 ,  27  and  28  of the 2013 Act which SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM on such market value as payable under sub­ Section (3) of  Section 30  of the 2013 Act.

21. Special Deputy Collector (LA) v. M.A. Thirunarayanan , 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 4003, (2010) 8 Mad LJ 330 P.5 & 6 - The contention that the reference court cannot award MORE THAN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED by the claimant also cannot be accepted. the Supreme Court in Bhimasha v. Land Acquisition Officer reported in  (2008) 10 SCC 797  on the basis of the protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, held that the value determined by public document in terms of Section 23 was acceptable and the value can be higher than what was claimed. 

22. Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P, (2011) 15 SCC 383 P . 8 to 10 - An application under  section 18  of the Act cannot be filed in regard to a land which was not acquired at all.. The remedy of a land holder whose land is taken without acquisition is either to file a civil suit for recovery of possession and/or for compensation, or approach the High Court by filing a writ petition if the action can be shown to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, biased, malafide or without the authority of law, and seek a direction that the land should be acquired in a manner known to law. When a writ petitioner makes out a case for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under   ARTICLE 226   of the Constitution , the High Court would not relegate him to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed questions of facts.

23. Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, (2003) 3 SCC 128 P.36 - the STATE IS NOT A 'PERSON INTERESTED' as defined in  Section 3(2)  of the Act. It is not a party to the proceedings before the Collector in the sense, which the expression 'parties to the litigation' carries. The Collector holds the proceedings and makes an award as a representative of the State Government. Land or an interest in land pre-owned by State cannot be subject matter of acquisition by the State the question of deciding the ownership of the State or holding of any interest by the State Government in proceedings before the Collector cannot arise in proceedings before the Collector A dispute as to pre-existing right or interest of the State Government in the property sought to be acquired is not a dispute capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either under  Section 18  or  Section 30  of the Act. 

24. Bailamma v. Poornaprajna House Building Coop. Society, (2006) 2 SCC 416 P. 16 & 25 - The EXCLUSION of the period during which the order of STAY operated is not dependent upon the party obtaining such an order - It, therefore, became imperative that in computing the period of two years, the period during which an order of stay operated, which prevented the authorities from taking any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration, must be excluded - The mere fact that the Collector did not pronounce the award after notice in the presence of the parties interested will not invalidate the award, though it may have a bearing on the question of limitation in the matter of seeking a reference under  Section 18  or 30 of the Act - the award was made and signed and approved by the Government within the period prescribed by  Section 11A  of the Act an award is validly made.

25. Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 440 P.13 - the Land Acquisition Officer held that the appellant being a lessee was not entitled to any compensation and compensation was payable only to the land owners.  having considered the claim of the appellant for compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim. This does amount to the making of an award, commonly described as "NIL AWARD". If the appellant was aggrieved by such an award, it was open to him to seek reference under  Section 18  of the Act.

26. Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, (1962) 1 SCR 676 P.6 & 7 - The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair-play and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to  s. 18  in a literal or mechanical way. In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under  s. 12(2)  it is obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to the persons interested a,, are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. This requirement itself postulates the NECESSITY OF THE COMMUNICATION of the award to the party concerned. 

27. Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545 P.11 - there is a DIFFERENCE between an `AWARD OF THE COLLECTOR' which is an offer of compensation by the Collector as the agent of the Government, and `AN AWARD OF THE COURT' - the assumption of the High Court that an order of the Collector refusing to refer a claim for increase in compensation to the civil court under  section 18(1)  of the Act, is an `award of the court' appealable under  section 54  of the Act, is wholly erroneous.  P.25-28 - When a notice under  section 12(2)  of the Act is received, the land owner or person interested is made aware of all relevant particulars of the award which enables him to decide whether he should seek reference or not. On the other hand, if he only comes to know that an award has been made, he would require further time to make enquiries or secure copies so that he can ascertain the relevant particulars of the award- If the words six months from the `date of the Collector's award' should be literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award and not the DATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE AWARD , it will lead to unjust and absurd results. 

28. State of Mizoram v. Biakchhawna , (1995) 1 SCC 156 P.7 & 8 - Collector made no reference to Civil Court under Section 18 - respondent filed suit in Court - When the statute indicated that the action be taken was to be in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and in no other way. The Collector acts as an agent of the Govt. under s. 11 and while making a reference under Section 18, he acts as a statutory authority exercising his own power under Section 18. Making an APPLICATION within limitation in writing is SINE QUO NON FOR MAKING A VALID REFERENCE. The court is a special tribunal under the Act having special jurisdiction and has power and duty to see that the reference made under Section 18 is in compliance with the conditions laid down therein so as to give to court the* jurisdiction to hear the reference.

29. Khazan Singh v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 242 P.7 - the Civil Court has to pass an award in answer to the reference made by the Collector under  Section 18  of the Act. If any party to whom notice has been served by the Civil Court did not participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk because an award would be passed perhaps to the detriment of the concerned party. But non-participation of any party would NOT confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to DISMISS THE REFERENCE FOR DEFAULT.

30. Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 289 P.2 - The Act is a self-contained Code and it does not speak of payment of any COURT-FEE. It requires only that the application should be made within the limitation prescribed either in clause (a) or (b) of Sub- section (2) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that non- payment of the deficit court-fee, though wrongly made by the appellant, is not a necessary. The owner or person interested is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on the application made under  Section 18(1)  seeking reference for determination of the compensation by the civil court 

31. Rajmani v. Collector, (1996) 5 SCC 701 P.4 - If the notice is not served on the claimant, he is deprived of his valuable opportunity. If the award in such circumstances came to be passed after setting aside the claimant ex- parte , though an appeal would lie under  Section 54  of the Act against such an award, alternative remedy is also available. We are of the view that the appropriate provisions that would be applicable to the claimant would be Order 9, Rule 9 read with  Section 151 , CPC . - it is the duty of the claimant and burden is always upon him, who seeks higher compensation to adduce evidence and prove in the Court that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate and that the acquired lands possessed of higher value for award or the compensation to be just and adequate compensation. 

32. Babua Ram v. State of U.P., (1995) 2 SCC 689 P.24 - SECTION 28A IS PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION – It does not apply to an award under S.26 made prior to commencement of Amendment Act 68 of 1984 i.e. 24.09.1984 even though 3 months period prescribed for making the application for redetermination of compensation has not expired by that date – Where award under S.11 was made prior to 24.09.1984 but reference court determined higher compensation on or after 24.09.1984, persons interested in other lands covered by the same notification would be entitled to apply for redetermination of compensation. P.33 - S.28A – A person interested becomes an AGGRIEVED PERSON when for other lands covered by the same notification under S.4(1) court awards higher compensation – such aggrieved person who had not made an application for reference becomes entitled to invoke S.28A. – Not confined to those who received compensation under protest but failed to apply for reference – Such construction would be arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory offending Article 14.

33. Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, (1980) 3 SCC 223 P. 8 to 14 - the definition of 'PERSON INTERESTED' must be liberally construed so as to' INCLUDE A BODY, LOCAL AUTHORITY, OR A COMPANY for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation - Thus, it cannot be said that the company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. For this purpose, the company could undoubtedly appear and adduce evidence on the question of the quantum of compensation.

34. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 484 P.7 - It is to be noted that by virtue of  Section 53  of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court unless they are inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. In the light of this provision, the High Court rightly held that there is no bar under the  Land Acquisition Act  to file a petition for AMENDMENT of the claim application in regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the  Land Acquisition Act  which is inconsistent with the power to allow amendment

35. Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751 S.NO PLUS FACTOR MINUS FACOR 1. The smallness of size. largeness of area. 2. proximity to a road situation in the interior at a distances from the Road. 3. frontage on a road. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to death. 4. nearness to developed area lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up 5. regular shape remoteness from developed locality 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

36. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Ashok Singhal, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 419 P.6 - the acquisition not having been for the Government itself, but for a statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the Court of reference as also the High Court in the appeal to issue NOTICE to the appellant before considering the claim of the land owners for enhancement of the compensation. It was not disputed that the provisions of the Act which required the service or notice to the body for whose benefit the acquisition was made were attracted in this case and such notice was not served on the appellants and the appellant had not been given an opportunity of being heard

37. State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan, (1996) 1 SCC 250 P.35 to 39 – VAGUENESS in notification – whether the public purpose stated in the notification is vague or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case – Non- specification of use to which each and every bit of land so notified would be put to, does NOT INVALIDATE the notification. Land Acquiring Body v. Ramprasad H. Maharaj, (2007) 15 SCC 593 Section 51A - Acceptance of certified copy as an evidence – CERTIFIED COPIES of sale deeds produced in land acquisition proceedings, held, ADMISSIBLE in evidence – But what would be its evidentiary value in determining the market value would depend upon several other relevant factors.

38. Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 (CB) P.14 - Question of payment of interest would arise only when the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. It is inequitable that the person who is deprived of the possession of the land, on account of acquisition proceedings is not given the amount which law demands to be paid to him, any delay thereafter would only be to his detriment. There must be a provision to buffet such iniquity. It is for the purpose of affording relief to the person who is entitled to such compensation when the payment of his money is delayed that the provision is made in  Section 34  of the Act. P.15 - When the court is of opinion that Collector should have awarded a larger sum as compensation the court has to direct the COLLECTOR TO PAY INTEREST ON SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT . The rate of interest is on a par with the rate indicated in  Section 34 . Thus interest has to accrue as per  Section 34  and  Section 28  of the Act on the compensation awarded, whether it is as per the award initially passed by the Collector or by the Court later. 

39. P.16 - From the Constitutional perspective the word 'COMPENSATION ' for the property taken was understood as the just equivalent of the value of the property. But when compensation is regarded as a statutory obligation the afore-cited definitions need not detract the courts in fathoming the real import of it. The exercise can be done with the aid of the provisions in the statutes. So what the Court, in the context of land acquisition, has to decide is how the Act has designed the compensation vis-à-vis the liability to pay interest.  P.20 - what is intended under  Section 23(2)  is additional to the market value of the land and "in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition". But it cannot be equated with any damage caused on account of "any disinclination of the person to part with the land acquired.

40. P.21 - Collector has to consider the objections which any person interested has stated pursuant to the notice given to him. It may be possible that a person so interested would advance objections for highlighting their disinclination to part with the land acquired on account of a variety of grounds, such as sentimental or religious or psychological or traditional etc.  Section 24  emphasises that no amount on account of any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land shall be granted as compensation. That aspect is qualitatively different from the solatium which the legislature wanted to provide "in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition P.22 - COMPULSORY NATURE OF ACQUISITION is to be distinguished from voluntary sale or transfer. In the latter, the landowner has the widest advantage in finding out a would-be buyer and in negotiating with him regarding the sale price. But in the compulsory acquisition the landowner is deprived of the right and opportunity to negotiate and bargain for the sale price. It depends on what the Collector or the Court fixes as per the provisions of the Act. The solatium envisaged in sub-section (2) "in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition" is thus not the same as damages on account of the disinclination to part with the land acquired.

41. CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 8 SCC 412 P.50 - It is true that "INTEREST" IS NOT COMPENSATION . It is equally true that  Section 45(5)  of the 1961 Act (INCOME TAX) refers to compensation. But as discussed hereinabove, we have to go by the provisions of the 1894 Act which awards "interest" both as an accretion in the value of the lands acquired and interest for undue delay. Interest under  Section 28  unlike interest under  Section 34  is an accretion to the value, hence it is a part of enhanced compensation or consideration which is not the case with interest under  Section 34  of the 1894 Act.

42. Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam, (1994) 4 SCC 370 P.7 - the Land Acquisition Officer has no power or Jurisdiction to give any land under acquisition or any other LAND IN LIEU OF COMPENSATION . Sub- section (4) though gives power to him in the matter of payment of compensation, it does not empower him to give any land in lieu of compensation. Sub-section (3) expressly gives power "only to allot any other land in exchange". In other words the land under acquisition is not liable to be allotted in lieu of compensation except under  Section 31 `(3), that too only to a person having limited interest. P. 8 - Since we have already held that the Land Acquisition Officer has no power or jurisdiction to allot land in lieu of compensation, the decree even, if any, under  Section 18  to the extent of any recognition of the directions in the award for the allotment of the land given under  Section 11  is a nullity. It is open to the appellant to raise the invalidity, nullity of the decree in execution in that behalf.

43. Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736 P.8 - the law is well-settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The provisions of  Section 28-A  should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the object underlying the said provision. P. 10 - If the said expression in  Section 28-A(l)  is thus construed, a person would be able to seek RE-DETERMINATION of the amount of compensation payable to him provided the following conditions are satisfied :- ( i ) An award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming in to force of  Section 28-A ;

44. (ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under  Section 11  has been allowed to the applicant in that reference; (iii) The person moving the application under  Section 28-A  is interested in other land covered by the same notification under  Section 4(1)  to which the said award relates; (iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under  Section 18 ; (v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the re-determination of amount of compensation is sought; and (vi) Only one application can be moved under  Section 28-A  for re- determination of compensation by an applicant. P.12 - the benefit of re-determination of amount of compensation under  Section 28-A  can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after the coming into force of  Section 28-A  provided the applicant seeking such benefit makes the application under  Section 28-A  within the prescribed period of three months from the making of the award on the basis of which re-determination is sought.

45. D. Venkamma v. Special Tehsildar (LA) Unit-IV, (1996) 1 SCC 85 P.3 - the foundation for making an application under  Section 28-A  is the award of the court. The expression " COURT " has been defined under  Section 3  (d) to mean "a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" and in an appropriate case "a Special judicial officer" appointed by the Government to perform the functions of the court. In other words,the court of original jurisdiction which receives an order of reference pursuant to an application made under  Section 18  is the CIVIL COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. By necessary implication. judgment of an appellate court made under  Section 54  of the Act does not give right or cause of action to make an application under  Section 28-A  of the Act.

46. Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. Govindhasamy , 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 4065, (2010) 5 CTC 640 P.12 - the Reference Court does not act like an Appellate Authority but as an original Court. Therefore, it is open to the parties to let in appropriate evidence to determine the correct market rate of the value of the land.  P.11 - Court at APPELLATE STAGE NOT TO INTERFERE with order of Reference Court merely on basis that that there were some conflicting orders before said Court — Order of Reference Court not interfered with

47. SAIL v. Sutni Sangam, (2009) 16 SCC 1 Overrules (2006) 1 LW 347 P.54 - In a land acquisition matter, the question of a body of the persons being represented by ASSOCIATION DOES NOT ARISE . The statute provides for filing of claim applications as also filing of objections by the land holders and not by and/or on behalf of the Association and that too an independent body corporate. P. 33 - In awarding compensation the Land Acquisition Collector should look into the estimate value of land and give due consideration to the other factors specified therein. Value of the property in the neighbourhood can be used as a criterion. The award should be made within a period two years.

48. Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyar District, Erode v. Athappa Gounder , (2004) 3 CTC 329 Paras 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 & 18 - Persons interested in seeking reference under Section 18 should make independent application to Collector and reference made under Section 30 cannot include reference made under Section 18 as scope of both Sections are different — Sub Court CANNOT CONVERT REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 30 TO ONE UNDER SECTION 18 — Person cannot approach Court directly for enhancement of compensation without making application before Collector for reference — Court cannot travel beyond scope of reference and if objection relates to quantum of compensation issue relating to measurement cannot be considered.

49. Special Tahsildar v. T. Nagendran , 2002 SCC OnLine Mad 502, (2003) 2 LW 414  P.10 - after passing of the award when possession is taken, the land vests with the Government absolutely. In the second type of case, where emergency provision is inducted, even without passing of an award, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of notice mentioned under Section 9(1), possession is taken and vesting takes place. Once VESTING is complete, there is no question of the Government withdrawing from the acquisition of any land and this is made clear in Section 48(1) of the Act.

50. Devika Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 573, (1999) 1 LW 185 P.13 - Even in the case of a proper acquisition where the land is covered by the notification, if the Government finds that they have EXCESS land in their possession over and above their requirement, there is an obligation to RETURN it to the original owner. Jogesh Chandra Roy v. Secy. of State, 1918 SCC OnLine Cal 405, AIR 1919 Cal 724 P.3 - where the Collector will not take up the matter and will not make an award, then, in order that the plaintiff may not be deprived of his remedy, he may maintain a SUIT in the ordinary Court for compensation which the Collector declines to assess. Those do not apply to the case where the Collector has made an award and where the plaintiff has got a right of calling upon the Collector to refer the matter to the civil Court 

51. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 5 SCC 71 In simple terms, the six items covered by  Section 23(1) , which are to be taken into consideration by the court in determining compensation, can be summarized as follows:­ ( i ) The market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under  Section 4(1) ; (ii) The damage to standing crops or trees, which are on the land at the time of the Collector taking possession; (iii) The damage sustained by reason of severing such land from the unacquired land; (iv) The damage sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or the earnings, of the person interested; (v) The reasonable expenses incurred by the person interested, in changing his residence or place of business, when he is compelled to do so in consequence of the acquisition; (vi) The damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the declaration under  Section 6  and the time of the Collector’s taking possession.

52. K. Dhanapalan v. Assistant Collector, 1965 SCC OnLine Mad 307, (1966) 79 LW 132  The Court had the power to REVIEW . As the award has to be deemed to be a decree of the civil Court, it will attract the other provisions of the C.P.C. Once it is deemed to be a decree, all the consequences of its being a decree unless expressly limited will follow. The provisions for review to the extent it is allowed by the Code will be applicable, as a review is not prohibited by the Land Acquisition Act.

53. THANK YOU!