IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35260 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.BABU, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 48, MARIYIL ARIKUZHA, MANNAKKAD, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.LEELAMMA GEORGE ABRAHAM SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.35260 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Leelamma George, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Government Pleader in detail. 2. The learned Government Pleader would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Budh Singh [(1995) 6 S.C.C. 233] wherein it has been laid down that the court has no jurisdiction to award interest in excess of the rate prescribed under the Act and for any period anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) notification. The learned Government Pleader submitted that when possession of the land is taken even before the promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1), such taking over of possession cannot be described as taking over of possession under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government Pleader pointed out that in this case the Supreme Court rejected a suit filed by the land owner for damages for action of deprivation of income pursuant to possession taken over even prior to Section 4(1) notification on the ground of limitation. The learned Government Pleader also referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Special Tahsildar (LA) v. Melath Chathukutty Nair (2002(1) KLT 700) wherein also W.P.C.No.35260/08 - 2 - it has been clearly laid down that any direction to pay interest under Section 34 or Section 28 from a date which is earlier to the date of Section 4(1) notification is clearly illegal and that the maximum that a claimant can get by way of interest is only interest from the date of Section 4(1) notification. It is also held by the Division Bench that in cases where possession is taken in anticipation of the promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1), the date of Section 4(1) is to be treated as the date on which possession was taken over legally for the purpose of calculation of interest under Section 34 or Section 28. 3. Having regard to the position of law as emerging from the above decisions and the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.L.Jain v. DDA [ (2004) 4 S.C.C. 79] referred to in my order dated 28.11.2008, the petitioner's claim for interest under Section 34 from the date of taking over possession cannot be upheld. The notification under Section 4(1) in this case was promulgated on 18.8.1999. The petitioner is eligible for interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period from 18.8.1999 till 18.8.2000 and for interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 18.8.2000 till date of payment. Ext.P1 is liable to be modified to that extent. Accordingly, in modification of Ext.P1, there will be a direction that the respondents shall pay interest to the W.P.C.No.35260/08 - 3 - petitioner on the redetermined market value at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.8.1999 till 18.8.2000 and at the rate of 15% per annum from 18.8.2000 till date of payment. The respondents are directed to pay the statutory interest found as above to be eligible for the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE