R L Jain (D) By Lrs Vs. D D A
also placed strong reliance on Satinder Singh vs. Umrao Singh and another AIR 1961 SC 908 wherein the question of payment of interest in the matter of award of compensation was considered by this Court. In this case the initial notification was issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the proceedings for acquisition were completed under East Punjab Act No. 48 of 1948. The High Court negatived the claim for interest on the ground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest. After quoting with approval the following observations of Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. vs. New Brunswick Electric Power Commissioner AIR 1928 PC 287: "upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principle sum awarded from the date when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows a contrary intention." the bench held as under: "... When a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so called; he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation.The normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. But here the land has been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 9.9.1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the land owner himself and consequently he was entitled to compensation or interest thereon for the anterior period." 18. In a case where the land owner 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 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 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 owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision 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.19. The case may be examined from the equitable consideration as well. In the earlier acquisition proceedings the notification under Section 4(1) had been published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for Rs. 6301/- for the plot in dispute on 30.12.1961. The award was made within 1-1/2 months of dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961. This amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was retained by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the sale certificate issued in favour of R.L. Jain on 31.8.1961 which shows that the plot was purchased by him for Rs. 3200/- only and thus he had received almost double amount of compensation. Therefore, even on equitable ground he is not entitled to any amount from the date of dispossession till the date of second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was issued in 1992.20. In this connection, it may be noted that the only plea taken in Suit No. 154 of 1965 filed by R.L. Jain was that it was given out at the time of auction sale of the plot that the same was outside the purview of the preliminary notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even assuming that it was so but that by itself could not render the acquisition proceedings invalid. At best, he would have been entitled to refund of the sale consideration paid by him. However, the Sub-Judge passed a decree that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plot in dispute are illegal and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 11.10.1961 is null and void. The decree having become final it is binding upon the respondent, DDA. The original appellant R.L. Jain on the one hand received compensation amount in terms of the award of the Collector and sought a reference to the Court on the ground of alleged inadequacy of compensation and at the same time filed the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings wherein he obtained a decree that the acquisition proceedings are null and void. It was on account of this judgment and decree that he succeeded in the second suit (Suit No. 421 of 1967), wherein a decree for demolition of construction made by DDA and restoration of possession in his favour was passed. It is in such circumstances that in order to save the construction the land acquisition proceedings were initiated again by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 9.9.1992. Under the award given by the Collector on 11.6.1994 he has been awarded Rs. 16,54,175/ as the market value of the land and Rs. 4,96,252 as solatium. The appellant has thus been more than adequately compensated and in our opinion even on equitable grounds he is not entitled to any further amount.
0[ds]18. In a case where the land owner 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 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 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 owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision 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.19. The case may be examined from the equitable consideration as well. In the earlier acquisition proceedings the notification under Section 4(1) had been published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for Rs. 6301/- for the plot in dispute on 30.12.1961. The award was made within 1-1/2 months of dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961. This amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was retained by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the sale certificate issued in favour of R.L. Jain on 31.8.1961 which shows that the plot was purchased by him for Rs. 3200/- only and thus he had received almost double amount of compensation. Therefore, even on equitable ground he is not entitled to any amount from the date of dispossession till the date of second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was issued in 1992.20. In this connection, it may be noted that the only plea taken in Suit No. 154 of 1965 filed by R.L. Jain was that it was given out at the time of auction sale of the plot that the same was outside the purview of the preliminary notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even assuming that it was so but that by itself could not render the acquisition proceedings invalid. At best, he would have been entitled to refund of the sale consideration paid by him. However, the Sub-Judge passed a decree that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plot in dispute are illegal and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 11.10.1961 is null and void. The decree having become final it is binding upon the respondent, DDA. The original appellant R.L. Jain on the one hand received compensation amount in terms of the award of the Collector and sought a reference to the Court on the ground of alleged inadequacy of compensation and at the same time filed the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings wherein he obtained a decree that the acquisition proceedings are null and void. It was on account of this judgment and decree that he succeeded in the second suit (Suit No. 421 of 1967), wherein a decree for demolition of construction made by DDA and restoration of possession in his favour was passed. It is in such circumstances that in order to save the construction the land acquisition proceedings were initiated again by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 9.9.1992. Under the award given by the Collector on 11.6.1994 he has been awarded Rs. 16,54,175/ as the market value of the land and Rs. 4,96,252 as solatium. The appellant has thus been more than adequately compensated and in our opinion even on equitable grounds he is not entitled to any further
### Instruction:
Predict whether the case will result in an affirmative (1) or negative (0) decision for the appeal, and then provide a thorough explanation using key sentences to support your prediction.

### Input:
also placed strong reliance on Satinder Singh vs. Umrao Singh and another AIR 1961 SC 908 wherein the question of payment of interest in the matter of award of compensation was considered by this Court. In this case the initial notification was issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the proceedings for acquisition were completed under East Punjab Act No. 48 of 1948. The High Court negatived the claim for interest on the ground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest. After quoting with approval the following observations of Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. vs. New Brunswick Electric Power Commissioner AIR 1928 PC 287: "upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principle sum awarded from the date when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows a contrary intention." the bench held as under: "... When a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so called; he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation.The normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. But here the land has been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 9.9.1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the land owner himself and consequently he was entitled to compensation or interest thereon for the anterior period." 18. In a case where the land owner 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 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 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 owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision 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.19. The case may be examined from the equitable consideration as well. In the earlier acquisition proceedings the notification under Section 4(1) had been published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for Rs. 6301/- for the plot in dispute on 30.12.1961. The award was made within 1-1/2 months of dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961. This amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was retained by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the sale certificate issued in favour of R.L. Jain on 31.8.1961 which shows that the plot was purchased by him for Rs. 3200/- only and thus he had received almost double amount of compensation. Therefore, even on equitable ground he is not entitled to any amount from the date of dispossession till the date of second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was issued in 1992.20. In this connection, it may be noted that the only plea taken in Suit No. 154 of 1965 filed by R.L. Jain was that it was given out at the time of auction sale of the plot that the same was outside the purview of the preliminary notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even assuming that it was so but that by itself could not render the acquisition proceedings invalid. At best, he would have been entitled to refund of the sale consideration paid by him. However, the Sub-Judge passed a decree that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plot in dispute are illegal and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 11.10.1961 is null and void. The decree having become final it is binding upon the respondent, DDA. The original appellant R.L. Jain on the one hand received compensation amount in terms of the award of the Collector and sought a reference to the Court on the ground of alleged inadequacy of compensation and at the same time filed the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings wherein he obtained a decree that the acquisition proceedings are null and void. It was on account of this judgment and decree that he succeeded in the second suit (Suit No. 421 of 1967), wherein a decree for demolition of construction made by DDA and restoration of possession in his favour was passed. It is in such circumstances that in order to save the construction the land acquisition proceedings were initiated again by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 9.9.1992. Under the award given by the Collector on 11.6.1994 he has been awarded Rs. 16,54,175/ as the market value of the land and Rs. 4,96,252 as solatium. The appellant has thus been more than adequately compensated and in our opinion even on equitable grounds he is not entitled to any further amount.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
18. In a case where the land owner 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 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 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 owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision 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.19. The case may be examined from the equitable consideration as well. In the earlier acquisition proceedings the notification under Section 4(1) had been published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for Rs. 6301/- for the plot in dispute on 30.12.1961. The award was made within 1-1/2 months of dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961. This amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was retained by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the sale certificate issued in favour of R.L. Jain on 31.8.1961 which shows that the plot was purchased by him for Rs. 3200/- only and thus he had received almost double amount of compensation. Therefore, even on equitable ground he is not entitled to any amount from the date of dispossession till the date of second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was issued in 1992.20. In this connection, it may be noted that the only plea taken in Suit No. 154 of 1965 filed by R.L. Jain was that it was given out at the time of auction sale of the plot that the same was outside the purview of the preliminary notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even assuming that it was so but that by itself could not render the acquisition proceedings invalid. At best, he would have been entitled to refund of the sale consideration paid by him. However, the Sub-Judge passed a decree that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plot in dispute are illegal and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 11.10.1961 is null and void. The decree having become final it is binding upon the respondent, DDA. The original appellant R.L. Jain on the one hand received compensation amount in terms of the award of the Collector and sought a reference to the Court on the ground of alleged inadequacy of compensation and at the same time filed the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings wherein he obtained a decree that the acquisition proceedings are null and void. It was on account of this judgment and decree that he succeeded in the second suit (Suit No. 421 of 1967), wherein a decree for demolition of construction made by DDA and restoration of possession in his favour was passed. It is in such circumstances that in order to save the construction the land acquisition proceedings were initiated again by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 9.9.1992. Under the award given by the Collector on 11.6.1994 he has been awarded Rs. 16,54,175/ as the market value of the land and Rs. 4,96,252 as solatium. The appellant has thus been more than adequately compensated and in our opinion even on equitable grounds he is not entitled to any further
