Maimune Banu Hamidali Khan and ors. Vs. State and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - interest on compensation - sections 4, 4 (1), 6, 16, 17 (3) a, 23 (1) a and 31 (2) of land acquisition act, 1894 - land of petitioner was taken over by acquisition officer before issuing notification under section 4 (1) - petitioner claimed for payment of rental compensation which was allowed - petitioner through this appeal sought directions for payment of interest on amount of rental compensation - collector has power to take possession of land before passing award only under section 17 (1) and 17 (4) - collector has to issue notification under section 4 (1) before initiating land acquisition proceedings - no notification was issued by collector before acquiring land of petitioner - held, petitioner entitled to claim interest. - article 14: [r.m. lodha, s.a. bobde & s.b. deshmukh, jj] retiral benefit - classification between part time lecturers and full time teachers held, the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification between part time lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. - however, he was not paid interest on the rental compensation granted by the reference court and he, therefore, claims his right to recover interest on rental compensation on the basis of a communication dated 2-11-1993 issue by the irrigation department, mantralaya, mumbai, addressed to the chief engineer, irrigation department, aurangabad, as well as a communication between the said parties dated 15-4-1994. the petitioner further states that a similar prayer was granted by this court in writ petition no. the petitioner has, therefore, approached us for a directions to pay the rental compensation as well as interest thereon. the payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of state of maharashtra & another v. however, instances are well known and plenty where the collector has taken possession of the land either by consent or by negotiations even before the notification under section 4(1) of the act has been published and the same is the case in these petitions. it also confers powers for taking possession of the land under acquisition even before the acquisition proceedings are initiated and that such possession should not be a matter of course and it should be only in exceptional cases. the resolutions dated 1-12-1972, 7-12-1977 and 24-3-1988 have thus recognized the government's powers to take possession of the land/property before initiating land acquisition proceedings under the act and payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon as has been observed by us in our order dated 18-11-2000. the communications dated 2-11-1993 and 15-4-1994 do make out a case that the government accepted to pay rental compensation @8% and interest thereon @12%. 8. the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions, cannot be sustained especially when such claims have been entertained by this court from time to time and directions were issued. we need not be detained by such proposal in deciding these petitions on their own merits and by examining the provisions of the act as well as the constitutional guarantee given by article 300-a to every citizen. (iv) it could have never been intended that the rate of compensation and solatium applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated so long ago should now enjoy the benefit of statutory enhancement and it must be remembered that the value of the land is taken under section 11(1) and section 23(1) with reference to the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) and it is that date which is usually material for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation and solatium. ' 11. the contentions of the learned agp that the government is not liable to pay rental compensation and interest thereon in view of the provisions of section 23(1-a) as well as section 23(2) of the act, do not appeal us. it is well established in law that the powers bestowed in favour of the government or its officers by issuing resolutions cannot be termed as powers with the authority of law. ' 12. having issued the resolution in 1972, 1977 and 1988 even after the amendments in the act were incorporated in the year 1984, the government of maharashtra cannot go back on these resolution and now take a stand that it is not liable to pay rental compensation as well as interest thereon to the petitioners whose lands have been acquired any time between 1982 to 1987, without instituting any acquisition proceedings under the act. but if the government makes such a promise and the promisee acts in reliance on it and alters his possession, there is no reason why the government should not be compelled to make good such promise like any other private individual. it is also seen from the record that in selected cases the government has paid rental compensation as well as interest thereon and in some other cases, the same benefit has been denied to petitioners for the reasons best known to the government. we have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that when the land/property is acquired by consent or by private negotiations, the owner concerned is entitled for the payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon. in case such amount of 80% compensation is not paid at the time of taking over the possession, the landowners are entitled for rental compensation as well as interest thereon and it ought to be at the rates as provided under sections 23 and 28 of the act. the state government may be better advised to derive a new policy on these lines, in case it wishes to continue with its intentions to take possession of the land/property, in exceptional cases or as a matter of course in future, before issuing a notification under section 4(1) of the act. we also hold that the land owners will be entitled to raise the demand of rental compensation as well as the interest thereon before the collector, when he would be passing the award under section 11 of the act or before the reference court, as the case may be. in case the concerned owner has not been paid 80% of the compensation as calculated by the collector while taking possession of such land/property without issuing notice under section 4(1) of the act, we direct the government to review its policy for higher rate of rental compensation as well as the interest thereon, in the light of the provisions of sections 17(3-a), 23(1-a) and section 28 of the act. we are satisfied that the prayer is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected.b.h. maralapalle, j.1. in all the these petitions, a common question of law is involved and hence, these petitions are disposed off by a common judgment.2. in writ petition no. 199/1998, agricultural land belonging to the petitioners admeasuring 5 hectare and 85 acre in survey no. 208, 212-a of latur, was acquired by private negotiations and the possession was taken over on 21-8-1986, whereas, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated thereafter and finally an award came to be passed on 3-5-1990 under the act. the petitioners also submitted an application under section 18 of the act. in the meanwhile, the petitioners approached this court in writ petition no. 3003/1996, which came to be disposed off by an order dated 11-7-1996 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of rental compensation for the period from 21-8-1986 to 3-5-1990, within the period of four months. the petitioners have received the rental compensation amount, but without interest and the claim is now for the interest on the amount of rental compensation.in writ petition no. 200/1998, the petitioner is an advocate by profession. he claims that his agricultural land admeasuring 11 acre is taken over by the land acquisition officer on 15-6-1982 and the notification under section 4(1) of the act was issued thereafter. finally, an award for compensation came to be passed under the act on 25-5-1993. the petitioner, therefore, filed writ petition no. 2786/1994 before this court for payment of rental compensation for the period from 15-6-1982 to 25-5-1993. the said writ petition came to be allowed by an order dated 8-7-1996 by a division bench of this court by directing the government to decide the pending application for rental compensation within a period of four months. accordingly, the petitioner has been paid an amount of rs. 6,50,000/- which came to be sanctioned by the respondent no. 3 by way of rental compensation in favour of the petitioner and an amount of rs. 5,04,295/- has been paid to him in the month of march, 1997, whereas, the balance of rs. 1,50,000/- has been withheld. he is seeking directions for payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of rental compensation paid to him for the period from 15-6-1982 to 31-3-1997.in writ petition no. 2674/2000, the petitioner's agricultural land in survey no. 48 of village harangul (bk) was acquired for the purpose of construction of air strip and possession of the said land admeasuring 2 hectare and 49 r was taken over by private negotiations on 14-2-1987, whereas, the notice under section 4(1) of the act came to be issued on 6-7-1987 and finally, the award was passed on 31-3-1991. his reference for higher compensation is pending before the jt. civil judge, sr. division, latur. he submitted an application on 16-7-1996 for payment of rental compensation @ 8% on the final award. as the application was not decided, he approached this court in writ petition no. 4137/1996, which came to be decided on 2-7-1999 with directions to the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending application for rental compensation on its own merits. the respondents calculated the amount of rental compensation and paid him the same. however, he was not paid interest on the rental compensation granted by the reference court and he, therefore, claims his right to recover interest on rental compensation on the basis of a communication dated 2-11-1993 issue by the irrigation department, mantralaya, mumbai, addressed to the chief engineer, irrigation department, aurangabad, as well as a communication between the said parties dated 15-4-1994. the petitioner further states that a similar prayer was granted by this court in writ petition no. 1024/1989 by an order dated 7-7-1989.in writ petition no. 2786/2000, the petitioners agricultural land, admeasuring 2 hectare and 72 are from the survey no. 20/4 and 20/5 of village shivani orrala, tq. nilanga, district, latur, was taken possession by the respondents on 21-8-1984 by assuring to pay the rental compensation @ 8% p.a. the land acquisition proceedings were subsequently initiated and an award came to be passed under the act on 12th april, 1991. the petitioner's reference l.a.r. no. 893/1992 for higher compensation was decided by the learned civil judge, sr. division, latur, on 18-8-1996. the petitioner, thereafter, applied for rental compensation @ 8% per year for the entire amount of compensation with 12% interest till the date of realization of the amount. the respondent authorities calculated the rental compensation on the basis of the award passed by the land acquisition officer. therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 22-2-2000 for payment of rental compensation with interest on the basis of the amount awarded by the reference court. this request has not been considered and hence, the petitioner has approached us and he has relied upon the orders passed by this court in writ petition no. 598/1994 and writ petition no. 1024/1989.in writ petition no. 3693/2000, the petitioner's agricultural land came to be acquired for the masalga medium project. the possession of the said land was taken over on 22-10-1985. the land acquisition proceedings were subsequently initiated and the award was passed in november, 1991. he, thereafter, made a representation for payment of rental compensation and he was paid an amount of rs. 22,170/- in respect of land in survey no. 13-k, whereas, he was not paid compensation for the land in survey no. 13 of village tupadi. he submitted an application on 22-4-1993 for payment of rental compensation and the said is pending. the petitioner has, therefore, approached us for a directions to pay the rental compensation as well as interest thereon.3. on the background of these cases, we are required to decide the following two questions :(i) where the land holders whose land was acquired by private negotiations or otherwise before the land acquisition proceedings under the act were initiated are entitled for the payment of rental compensation for the period from the date of possession till the date of the award by the land acquisition officer or by the reference court; and(ii) whether such land holders are entitled for interest on the amount of rental compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the realization of the amount of rental compensation.4. shri v.d. sapkal, learned a.g.p., has opposed both the demands viz. the payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of state of maharashtra & another v. nanabai rathod & others, : air1989bom9 and state of himachal pradesh & others v. dharamdas, : air1996sc127 .it has been submitted by the learned agp that the concept of rental compensation and interest thereon in the cases where the possession of the land has been taken over before the land acquisition proceedings were initiated is not required to be considered separately and the amendments carried out in the act in 1984 (act no. 68 of 1984) are self explanatory and provide for an amount calculated @ 12 percentage per annum on the market value for the period from the date of taking possession under section 23(1-a) of the act and further amount of 30 percentum in addition to the market value, of the land, on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition, is payable under section 23(2) of the act.the learned additional government pleader has also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions. he has more particularly submitted that after passing the award by the collector, under section 11 of the act and the petitioners had submitted reference under section 18 of the act and after these applications have been decided by the court, the awards had not been challenged by filing an appeal under section 54 of the act, the petitioners are estopped from raising any claim against the government, either by way of rental compensation and/or interest thereon.5. article 300-a of the constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his properties save by authority of law. the subject of land acquisition and requisition falls in the concurrent list in the 7th schedule of the constitution. the land acquisition proceedings are commenced by issuing a notification under section 4(1) of the act and the persons interested in the land covered by such notification may within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification object to the acquisition of the land under section 5-a of the act. a declaration is required to be made and published under section 6(1) of the act and the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for the company, as the case may be and after making such a declaration, the appropriate government may acquire the land in the manner set out in the act. under section 7, the collector, is required to be directed to take an order for the acquisition of the land from the commissioner for the appropriate government and he shall cause the land to be measured under section 8 of the act. once the notification under section 4(1) of the act is published, the land covered in the said notification cannot be alienated unless the proceedings are dropped by the government. the collector, then, is required to pass an award under section 11 of the act for the payment of compensation to the land holders and section 11-a sets out a period of limitation of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 to pass the award. if no award is made within that period, entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. while determining the amount of compensation, the collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 of the act. the award passed by the collector, will become final under section 12 of the act. the possession of the land is taken under section 16 after the award has been passed by the collector under section 11 of the act and thereupon, the land shall vest absolutely in the government, free from all encumbrances. section 17 of the act is a special provision empowering the appropriate government or the commissioner to invoke the emergency clause to take the possession of the land needed for public purposes before passing the award and after expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9(1) of the act, as per sub-section (1) thereof. whereas, sub-section (4) of section 17 of the act is independent of sub-section (1) and it empowers the appropriate government/commissioner to take possession of the land under acquisition any time after the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the act. section 17(3) of the act states that in every case, the collector shall at the time of taking possession offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees, if any, on such lands and for any of the damages sustained by them, caused by such sudden dispossession and in case such offer is not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damages shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for the land, under the provisions contained therein. sub-section (3-a) in the scheme of section 17 of the act has been incorporated by the act no. 68/1984 and it reads as under: '(3-a). for the purpose of enabling the state government for the commissioner to determine whether land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, it shall be lawful for any officer of the state government in the public works department, or any other officer either generally or specially authorised by the state government in this behalf or as the case may be, any officer authorised by the commissioner, and for his servant and workmen,--(i) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality,(ii) to mark such levels,(iii) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain the land is adapted for such purpose, and(iv) where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken to cut down and clear away any standing crop, fence or jungle :provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier atleast seven days notice in writing of his intention to do so.'whereas, section 23 of the act sets out the matters to be considered in determining the compensation. sub-section (1-a) added to the scheme of section 23 of the act by amendment in 1984 reads as under :'23(1-a) in addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier:explanation.--in computing the period referred to in this sub-section any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.'section 28 of the act makes provisions for payment of interest on excess payment and it states that if the sum which in the opinion of the court, the collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in excess of the sum which the collector did award as compensation, the award of the court may direct that the collector shall pay interest on such excess amount @ 9 percentum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess provided that the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken, interest @ 15 percentum p.a. shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into court before the date of such expiry.section 28-a has been added in the scheme by the act no. 68/1984 and it provides a remedy to the persons interested in all other lands covered by the same notification under section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award passed by the collector, but were not a party before the reference court, by making an application to the collector, within three months from the date of the award of the court for redetermination of the compensation amount payable to them on the basis of the award of the court. section 54 provides for appeals against the award of the court in reference application under section 18 of the act.6. as is clear from the scheme of the act, that the collector has the powers to take possession of the lands under acquisition before the award is passed only under section 17(1) and 17(4) of the act and the act does not provide for taking possession of the land/property for public purposes prior to initiating the land acquisition proceedings by publishing a notification under section 4(1) of the act. however, instances are well known and plenty where the collector has taken possession of the land either by consent or by negotiations even before the notification under section 4(1) of the act has been published and the same is the case in these petitions. article 300-a of the constitution forbids the collector from taking the possession of any property save by authority of law. therefore, such possessions of the land/property taken by the collector in the instant cases is certainly in breach of the constitutional guaranty given to every citizen. even under section 17 of the act, while invoking the emergency clause for taking prior possession of the subject land/property, the added provisions of sub-section (3-a) of the act make it obligatory on the part of the collector to tender the payment of 80% of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested/entitled thereof and pay to them unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned in section 31(2) of the act. in none of the cases at hand, the collector had tendered or paid 80% of the compensation as estimated by him and the land was acquired without paying a penny to the land holders at the time of taking possession though it is stated that the possession was taken over by consent or by private negotiations.7. it appears that the state of maharashtra, by issuing a government resolution dated 1st december, 1972 sought to bestow itself with the powers of taking possession of the land/property before instituting the land acquisition proceedings under the act in certain cases and by following the procedure set out in the said resolution. the resolution states that the government has authorised the irrigation and power department/b & c department to take possession of land required for its development work by private negotiations whenever possible as it was apprehended that the speed of acquisition of lands under the land acquisition act, 1894 would not be in view of its procedural requirements, commensurate with the tempo of works planned by the concerned departments, thus resulting in delays in execution of works. it referred to its earlier government resolution dated 2-5-1961 for the procedure for taking over lands by private negotiations and it noted inordinate delays in deciding the rentals and therefore, set out a new procedure. clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the said government resolution deals with the procedure for taking over the possession by private negotiations and clause 6 deals with the payment of rental compensation. it states that the rental compensation shall be paid @ 61/2 percentum of the final award valued in respect of nonagricultural and agricultural land with a view to avoid any inconvenience/hardship to the owners of the land who have willingly parted with their land and to ensure timely and regular payment of rental compensation the procedure set out therein has to be followed. a similar government resolution was issued on 17-9-1977 enhancing the rental compensation to 8% and in addition, payment of interest on such compensation @ 12% p.a. the third government resolution came to be issued on 24th march, 1988. this resolution has been issued after the act came to be amended in 1984. in clause 4 therein, it specifically refers to the payment of solatium at 30% under section 23(2) of the act. it also confers powers for taking possession of the land under acquisition even before the acquisition proceedings are initiated and that such possession should not be a matter of course and it should be only in exceptional cases. the resolutions dated 1-12-1972, 7-12-1977 and 24-3-1988 have thus recognized the government's powers to take possession of the land/property before initiating land acquisition proceedings under the act and payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon as has been observed by us in our order dated 18-11-2000. the communications dated 2-11-1993 and 15-4-1994 do make out a case that the government accepted to pay rental compensation @ 8% and interest thereon @ 12%.8. the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions, cannot be sustained especially when such claims have been entertained by this court from time to time and directions were issued. in pursuance to these directions, the respondents state authorities have paid not only rental compensation but also interest thereon in selected cases. if the government decided to pay rental compensation pursuant to its policy in the government resolution issued in 1972, 1977 and 1988, it ought to have followed the said policy uniformly including the policy of payment of interest on such amount of rental compensation. instead the government has resorted to pick & choose policy and thus, acted arbitrarily, violating the guarantee enshrined under article 14 of the constitution. after having paid such amounts, may be in selected cases, the government cannot turn back now and say that it is not obliged to pay such amounts and scheme of the act forbids or does not contemplate such payments. shri sapkal, learned agp, on instructions also stated that the government of maharashtra is actively considering a proposal to review its earlier policy for payment of rental compensation and interest thereon. we need not be detained by such proposal in deciding these petitions on their own merits and by examining the provisions of the act as well as the constitutional guarantee given by article 300-a to every citizen.9. to understand the true scope of the amendments incorporated under the act in 1984, it is necessary for us to refer to the provisions of section 30 of the said amending act (act 68 of 1984). the said provisions reads as under :'30. transitional provisions.---(1) the provisions of sub-section (1-a) of section 23 of the principal act, as inserted by clause (a) of section 15 of this act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, ---(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal act pending on the 30th day of april, 1982 (the date of introduction of the land acquisition (amendment) bill, 1982, in the house of the people), in which no award has been made by the collector before that date;(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the collector before the commencement of this act.(2) the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23, and section 28 of the principal act, as amended by clause (b) of section 15 and section 18 of this act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the collector or court or to any order passed by the high court or supreme court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal act after the 30th day of april, 1982 (the date of introduction of the land acquisition (amendment) bill, 1982 in the house of the people) and before the commencement of this act.'10. in case of union of india and another v. raghubir singh (dead) by l.rs., : [1989]178itr548(sc) , the constitution bench of the supreme court has, at length dealt with the added provisions in the act by amendment 68 of 1984 and its applicability to the cases pending before the reference court at the time the said amendments were brought into force. the earlier judgments in the cases of bhag singh : air1985sc1576 and mohinder singh : air1987sc758 was over ruled. the apex court referred to the provisions of section 30 of the amending act and held that;(i) section 30(2) of amendment act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to the cases where award by the collector or by the court is made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 or the appeals against such awards decided by the high court and the supreme court, where the decisions of the high court or the supreme court are rendered before 24-9-1984 or after that date.(ii) it is material that the award by the collector or the court should have been made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 and the words 'any such award' only mean the award made by the collector or court, and carry no greater limiting sense.(iii) the amendment act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date and such retrospectivity as appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent act and must be discovered from the specific terms of the provisions concerned.(iv) it could have never been intended that the rate of compensation and solatium applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated so long ago should now enjoy the benefit of statutory enhancement and it must be remembered that the value of the land is taken under section 11(1) and section 23(1) with reference to the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) and it is that date which is usually material for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation and solatium.in case of k.s. paripoornan v. state of kerala : air1995sc1012 , while dealing with the application of amendments carried out in 1984 to the act, after going through its earlier judgments it is concluded in para no. 60 of the judgment as under :-'for the reasons aforementioned it must be concluded that in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to date of commencement of the amending act the payment of the additional amount payable under section 23(1-a) of the act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 30 of the amending act. zora singh, : (1992)1scc673 (supra) insofar as it holds that the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference court on september 24, 1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the collector, does not lay down the correct law.'11. the contentions of the learned agp that the government is not liable to pay rental compensation and interest thereon in view of the provisions of section 23(1-a) as well as section 23(2) of the act, do not appeal us. these provisions are required to be construed as applicable to the possession of the lands/properties taken as per the provisions of the act i.e. either under section 16 or 17 of the act and not to the possessions of the land/property taken otherwise viz. under the resolutions passed by the government. it is well established in law that the powers bestowed in favour of the government or its officers by issuing resolutions cannot be termed as powers with the authority of law. the resolutions cannot be equated with the statutory provisions of law or rules framed thereunder. therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the state government has no powers to take possession of the lands before publishing a notification under section 4(1) of the act. the possession of the land taken prior to issuance of the notification under section 4(1) of the act is illegal and unconstitutional and the authority of the government in such matters flowing form the resolutions passed by it does not remedy the situation. in this regard, we may safely refer to a judgment of the apex court in the case of m/s. bishambar dayal chandra mohan v. state of u.p. : [1982]1scr1137 . the apex court has held that: 'article 300-a provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. the state government cannot while taking recourse to the executive power of the state under article 162, deprive a person of his property. such power can be exercised only by authority of law and not by a mere executive fiat or order. article 162, as is clear from the opening words, is subject to other provisions of the constitution. it is therefore, necessarily subject to article 300-a. the word 'law' in the context of article 300-a must mean an act of parliament or of a state legislature, a rule, or a statutory order, having the force of law, i.e. positive or state made law.'12. having issued the resolution in 1972, 1977 and 1988 even after the amendments in the act were incorporated in the year 1984, the government of maharashtra cannot go back on these resolution and now take a stand that it is not liable to pay rental compensation as well as interest thereon to the petitioners whose lands have been acquired any time between 1982 to 1987, without instituting any acquisition proceedings under the act. the government is, in fact, estopped from going back on its promise made in the said resolutions for payment of rental compensation and the interest thereon. in the case of m/s. motilal padampat sugar mills v. state of u.p. : [1979]118itr326(sc) , the apex court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is also applicable against the government and the defence based on executive necessity was categorically negative. it was held that where the government makes the promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and in fact the promisee acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the government would be held bound by the promise and it would be enforceable against the government at the instance of the promisee notwithstanding that there was no consideration for the promise. the apex court went on to say: 'if the government does not want its freedom of executive action to be hampered or restricted, the government need not make a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and the promisee would alter his possession relying on it. but if the government makes such a promise and the promisee acts in reliance on it and alters his possession, there is no reason why the government should not be compelled to make good such promise like any other private individual.'13. in the case of executive engineer, irrigation division v. laghubhai nanubhai & others 1995(4) supp. s.c.c. 583, the possession of the land was taken over by the government under an agreement and the act dt. 7-3-1963 and notification under section 4(1) of the act was issued in respect of the some of the land on 20-12-1989. the supreme court upheld the right of the claimants for entitlement of the mesne profits for the period from 7-3-1963 to 20-12-1989.14. in the case of special land acquisition officer v. n.s. tekkalaki & others : (1995)5scc686 , the notification under section 4(1) of the act was published on 23-1-1980 and the award was published on 28-3-1980. it was held by the apex court that the claimants were not entitled to the additional amount @ 12% p.a. of the enhanced compensation under section 23(1-a) of the act as amended by the amending act no. 68/1984 and therefore, the benefit of section 23(1-a) of the act is applicable only to the cases covered by section 30 of the amending act and the cases covered by the acquisition proceedings initiated after the said amendment. in the case of assistant commissioner, gadag sub division, gadag v. mathpathi basavannewwa and others, : air1995sc2492 , possession of the land was taken on 23-1-1971 and the notification under section 4(1) of the act was published in the gazette on 2-8-1984. the land acquisition officer made his award on 15-1-1986. the issue before the apex court was from what date the respondents owners were entitled to the benefit of section 23(1-a) of the act, as amended by act no. 68/1984. it was contended before the supreme court that the additional amount @ 12% p.a. under section 23(1-a) of the act will not be payable from the date on which possession was taken till the date of the publication of notification under section 4(1) of the act. while rejecting the contentions, the apex court held: 'if the possession is taken earlier and notification is issued later but the award is subsequently made, the owner or the claimant is entitled to the additional compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of the award, though possession was taken before the notification under section 4(1) was published.'15. when a citizen looses the possession of his land/property, the effect is nothing short of being thrown on the roads and that involves financial liabilities not only for loss of the land/property but also for rehabilitation by way of shelter and/or means of earnings. it can not be accepted that the government has the power to throw the property owner on roads and ask him to wait for the land acquisition proceedings being initiated under the act at its sweet will and even, may be decades later, as has happened in some of the cases at hand turning down the claim for compensation. the intention behind the resolutions as issued by the state government is explicit and it shows the government's full awareness that it has no authority in law to take the possession of the land/property by consent or by private negotiations prior to the date of publication of the notice under section 4(1) of the act and therefore, to meet the emergency situation, may be in the larger public interest to take over the immediate possession of the land/property. therefore, the government resolutions appear to have been issued from time to time recognizing the land/property owners' right to receive rental compensation and interest thereon. it is also seen from the record that in selected cases the government has paid rental compensation as well as interest thereon and in some other cases, the same benefit has been denied to petitioners for the reasons best known to the government. the directions issued by this court from time to time which have been referred to in the earlier paragraphs, regarding payment of rental compensation have not been challenged by the state government and these directions have become final. these directions have been implemented and rental compensation has been paid to the concerned land/property owners on the basis of the resolutions allowing such payments. the loss of possession of agricultural land entails the loss of earning by way of cultivation of crops and if such possession is taken over without instituting the acquisition proceedings as contemplated under the act, the land owner must be compensated for such loss immediately. if such rental compensation has been paid belatedly, the land owner is entitled to receive interest thereon. the amended provisions of the act, as relied upon by the learned additional government pleader do not envisage and cover, in their ambit, the cases of such acquisitions by consent or by private negotiations except as contemplated under section 17 of the act. we have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that when the land/property is acquired by consent or by private negotiations, the owner concerned is entitled for the payment of rental compensation as well as interest thereon. the absence of such provision regarding payment of compensation would certainly defeat the protection guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law.15-a. it would be appropriate for the government, to review its policy for acquisition of land before the notification under section 4(1) of the act is issued. by incorporating sub-section (3-a) in section 17, the parliament has recognised the land owners' right to receive eighty percent of the compensation amount at the time of possession taken over under the said section. whenever the state government decides to take possession by private negotiations or by consent, the owner of such land/property must be paid eighty percent of the compensation amount as envisaged under the provisions of section 17(3-a) of the act and if such payment is made, all other benefits under the act would be available to such owners. in case such amount of 80% compensation is not paid at the time of taking over the possession, the landowners are entitled for rental compensation as well as interest thereon and it ought to be at the rates as provided under sections 23 and 28 of the act. the land acquisition officer or the reference court would have powers to deal with the claimants' right for rental compensation and interest thereon while passing the award. it would be imperative that such a remedy is available to the claimants at the first instance rather than dragging him to knock the doors of this court under article 226 of the constitution. the state government may be better advised to derive a new policy on these lines, in case it wishes to continue with its intentions to take possession of the land/property, in exceptional cases or as a matter of course in future, before issuing a notification under section 4(1) of the act.16. in the result, we allow the writ petitions and direct the state authorities to pay the rental compensation and interest thereon at the rates prescribed in the government resolution dated 24-3-1988 and the payment shall be released as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of six months from today by the collector concerned. we also hold that the land owners will be entitled to raise the demand of rental compensation as well as the interest thereon before the collector, when he would be passing the award under section 11 of the act or before the reference court, as the case may be. in case the concerned owner has not been paid 80% of the compensation as calculated by the collector while taking possession of such land/property without issuing notice under section 4(1) of the act, we direct the government to review its policy for higher rate of rental compensation as well as the interest thereon, in the light of the provisions of sections 17(3-a), 23(1-a) and section 28 of the act.rule is made absolute accordingly. no order as to costs.after we pronounced the judgment, shri v.d. sapkal, learned additional government pleader prayed for stay of the judgment for a period of four weeks. we are satisfied that the prayer is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected.