THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
L.A.A.S. No. 904 of 2011
JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi)
Upon requisition of the Executive Engineer I & CID IB
Division, Warangal, the land admeasuring Ac.5.23 gts., in
Sy.No.39 sitauted at Mamillamadava Village of
Nuthankal Mandal belonging to the respondent herein was
acquired for the purpose of submergence of land in Thanamcherla Anicut. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") was published on 26.09.2002 followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 28.09.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, dated 29.03.2003 fixing the market value at Rs.14,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, respondent/ claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The reference was registered as O.P.No.58 of 2003 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. By an order, dated 23.11.2010, the learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the market value from Rs.14,000/- 2
GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_904_2011 per acre to Rs.24,500/- per acre, however, granted all the other statutory benefits to the respondent/claimant i.e., 30% solatium over enhanced compensation; 12% additional market value from the date of notification till the date of award and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter for future interest at 15% per annum till the realization of entire amount of compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material brought on record.
3. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader of Appeals that the reference Court grossly erred in not considering the case of the Land Acquisition Officer in correct prospective and not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced while enhancing the compensation. It is also submitted that the reference Court has erred in treating the 3 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_904_2011 subject land as wet land and enhanced the market value only on guess work without any documentary evidence.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submits that after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the reference Court has rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.24,500/-. Therefore, the Counsel sought to sustain the impugned order.
5. As seen from the record, in the award the Land Acquisition Officer stated that there were no registered sale deeds within the 3 years preceding the acquisition of land and as such the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the basic value register. However, taking into consideration that the respondent/claimant has been raising some crops in the acquired land it cannot be treated as dry land and taking into consideration the average of the real market value which would be 50 to 100 percent and average of it would be 75% and accordingly the learned reference Court enhanced the market value from Rs.14,000/- per acre to Rs.24,500/- per acre {Rs.14,000/- + Rs.10,500/- (being 75%)} and the said finding 4 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_904_2011 needs no interference by this Court. At this stage, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant that as per the decisions of the Apex Court in R.L.Jain (D) by LRs v. DDA and others1 and Tahera Khotoon and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer2 , the claimant is entitled to the benefit of 15% additional interest from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of publication of the notification. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Admittedly, the possession of the land was taken on 21.05.1990 and whereas the notification was issued on 26.09.2002. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in R.L.Jain case (supra) held as under:-
"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 1 (2004) 4 SCC 79 2 (2014) 13 SCC 613 5 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_904_2011 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 lends support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded."
6. In Tahera Khotoon (supra) the Apex Court by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, held as under:-
"15. It is also not in dispute that the Municipal Committee was in possession of the aforesaid property right from 01.01.1983 till the notification was issued by the State Government on 10.01.1996. Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Madishetti Bala Ramul {(2007) 9 SCC 650}, we direct the State Government to pay rents/damages at the rate of 15% on the compensation awarded from the date the land owners were dispossessed, namely, from 01.01.1983 till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification i.e., 10.01.1996. The calculations shall be made by the State Government as expeditiously as possible and disburse the aforesaid amount to the appellants as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."6
GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_904_2011
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the respondent/ claimant is entitled for additional interest at 15% from the date of taking over of actual possession till the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act.
8. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed confirming the market value fixed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.58 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. However, the respondent-claimant is entitled to additional interest @ 15% per annum on compensation i.e., market value, additional market value and solatium from the date of taking over actual possession i.e., 21.05.1990 till the date of publication of notification i.e., 26.09.2002. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI _______________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 11.08.2022 gkv/tsr 7 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_904_2011 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI L.A.A.S. No.904 of 2011 DATE: -08-2022