THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
L.A.A.S. Nos. 640 of 2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Justice G. Sri Devi)
The lis in this batch of Appeals preferred by the Special
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Unit-I, Outer Ring Road
Project, HMDA, Hyderabad is directed against the common order
dated 29.04.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.947, 946, 1325, 944,
132, 942 and 943 of 2008 respectively, on the file of the Special
Sessions Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. For the purpose of construction of Trumphet Interchange
on NH-7, connecting Outer Ring Road and International Airport,
Shamshabad, the land of the claimants admeasuring Ac.22.28
guntas in Sy.Nos.194, 271, 282, 287 to 298, situated at
Shamsabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was
acquired by the Government by issuing draft notification under
Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the
Act") on 24.05.2006 followed by draft declaration. After due
2
GSD, J & MGP, J
Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014
enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on
24.11.2007 fixing the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.1200/- per square yard. Not satisfied with the compensation
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed
protest petition and sought for reference under Section 18 of
the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The reference
Court, by the impugned order has enhanced the market value of
the acquired land from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/- per square
yard. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed by the
Land Acquisition Officer.
3. Heard Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
claimants. Perused the material available on record.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has contended
that the Land Acquisition Officer having examined several sale
statistics in the vicinity has rightly fixed the market value at
Rs.1200/- per square yard but the reference Court erroneously
enhanced the compensation from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/- per
square yard without there being any cogent evidence. The
claimants except marking Ex.A1-sale deed, wherein the land
3
GSD, J & MGP, J
Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014
was sold at Rs.10,579/- per square yard, have not produced any
other documents. Even the sale transaction covered by Ex.A1 is
dated 09.09.2005 and whereas Section 4 (1) of notification is
dated 24.05.2006 i.e., there is only a time gap of nine months
and therefore, the same ought not to have been taken into
consideration.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the claimants has contended that apart from oral
evidence adduced by the claimants, Ex.A1-sale transaction,
dated 09.09.2005, would reflect that the land in the vicinity was
sold at Rs.3,60,00,000/- per acre. Further, the land covered by
Ex.A1 is facing to NH-7 and the acquired lands are also facing
NH-7 leading from Hyderabad to Bangalore. Therefore, the
reference Court has given cogent reasons while accepting the
sale transactions which were taken place prior to the 4 (1)
notification and has rightly relied on Ex.A1 and enhanced the
market value of the acquired land from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/-
per square yard which needs no interference by this Court.
6. As seen from the record, the individual claimants were
examined as P.W.1 and they have marked the sale transaction
4
GSD, J & MGP, J
Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014
covered by Ex.A1 dated 09.09.2005, which is nine months
earlier to the date of notification in the present acquisition
proceedings. Further, the record discloses that the land
covered by Ex.A1 and the present acquired lands are facing NH-
7, highway leading from Hyderabad to Bangalore, which shows
that the lands are useful for commercial purpose. Further, the
acquired lands are situated within the village limit of
Shamsabad, near to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport.
Although the claimants claimed that the acquired land is within
the distance of 1.5 km. from Rajiv Gandhi International Airport
and the land under Ex.A1 is 4 kms. away from the airport and
therefore, the land under acquisition would fetch Rs.30,000/-
per square yard, in the absence of any evidence adduced by
them in this regard, the reference Court has rightly rejected the
said claim. Taking into consideration the proximity of the
acquired land with Ex.A1 and the common commercial nature,
the reference Court rightly relying on Ex.A1-sale deed, has
enhanced the market value from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/- per
square yard, which is just and reasonable. Therefore, this
5
GSD, J & MGP, J
Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014
Court is not inclined to interfere with the enhancement of
market value fixed by the reference Court.
7. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the
claimants/ respondents has contended that there is ambiguity
as to the grant of interest on the solatium and additional market value. The said issue is no more res integra as the same has already been considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India1. While considering various decision of the High Courts and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in State of Haryana v. Kailashwati2, the Apex Court held that "the interest awardable under Section 28 would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. In view of the same, it is clear that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest in the aggregate amount including solatium." The above position has been further clarified by a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of 1 (2001) 7 SCC 211 2 AIR 1980 P & H 117 6 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014 India3 wherein it is held that "the claimants would be entitled for interest on solatium and additional market value if the award of the reference Court or that of the appellate Court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium and additional market value or where the claim had not been rejected either expressly or impliedly."
8. In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed confirming the market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.10,500/- per square yard. The claimants are also entitled to all other statutory benefits including the interest on solatium and enhanced/additional market value. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI ________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 21.09.2022 gkv/tsr 3 (2006) 8 SCC 457 7 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014 8 GSD, J & MGP, J Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI L.A.A.S. Nos. 640 of 2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54 of 2014 (per Justice G. Sri Devi) DATE:21.09.2022