The State Of A.P.Lanc Acquisition ... vs Pakanati Ram Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4114 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4114 Tel
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2022

Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P.Lanc Acquisition ... vs Pakanati Ram Reddy on 11 August, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi, M.G.Priyadarsini

            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/-

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

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

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

(2004) 4 SCC 79

(2014) 13 SCC 613

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."

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