The Land Acqusition Officer / ... vs Nayalakonda Damodhar Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 4115 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4115 Tel
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Land Acqusition Officer / ... vs Nayalakonda Damodhar Rao 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. 406 of 2012

JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi)

      The Government has acquired the land situated at

Gangadhara Village and Mandal of Karimnagar District belonging

to the respondent herein for the purpose of construction of CPW

Scheme. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land

Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") was published on

10.09.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award,

dated 23.08.2007 fixing the market value at Rs.22,000/- per

acre for paddy land of dry agricultural lands. 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 L.A.O.P.No.56 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior

Civil Judge, Siricilla. By an order, dated 19.01.2011, the

learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the market value from

Rs.22,000/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, however,

granted all the other statutory benefits to the

respondent/claimant i.e., 12% additional market value,

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_406_2012

solatium at 30% on the market value, interest etc., on

the enhanced amount to extent of land acquired from

him. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed

by the Land Acquisition Officer.

2. Heard both sides and perused the material brought on

record.

3. The only contention raised by the learned Government

Pleader of Appeals is that the reference Court ought not to have

based on Ex.A2 for enhancing the market value of the acquired

land since the lands covered by Ex.A2 and the acquired lands

are not similar in nature.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-claimant submits that after considering the evidence

of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.R1 and R2 the reference Court has

rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.22,000/- to

Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the Counsel sought to sustain the

impugned order.

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_406_2012

5. As seen from the record, the present notification was

issued on 10.09.2005 and where as the sale transaction covered

by Ex.P2-sale deed is dated 02.08.2005. Therefore, Ex.P2 sale

deed is quite relevant for the purpose of determining the fair

market value of the acquired land which was rightly done by the

reference Court. A perusal of the record, it transpires that the

land covered by Ex.P2 was situated in Sy.No.1006/A and where

as the acquired land is located in Sy.No.1138 of the same

village. Therefore, taking into consideration the potentiality of

the land, the reference Court has rightly enhanced the market

value from Rs.22,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the said

finding 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

preliminary notification. The said fact has not been disputed by

(2004) 4 SCC 79

(2014) 13 SCC 613

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_406_2012

the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. Admittedly, the

possession of the land was taken on 08.12.2003 and whereas the

notification was issued on 10.09.2005. 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 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:-

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_406_2012

"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."

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.56 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Siricilla. However, the respondent-claimant is entitled to

additional interest @ 15% per annum on compensation i.e.,

GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_406_2012

market value, additional market value and solatium from the

date of taking over actual possession i.e., 08.12.2003 till the