Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector, vs Linga Gowri Shanker Died Per L.Rs. on 28 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
L.A.A.S.NOs.13 AND 674 OF 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)
These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved
by the order and decree dated 17.11.2008 passed in O.P.No.128 of
1992 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the reference
Court’).
2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same
order and decree passed by the reference Court, both the appeals
are heard together and disposed of by way of this common
judgment.
3. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the reference Court.
4. The facts of the case in brief are that draft notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration were published in the
Gazette on 23.04.1981. The draft declaration got lapsed for want of
Urban Land Clearance, no award could be passed within the
statutory period, Hence, APIIC Limited has issued a fresh
AKS,J & ETD,J
2
requisition on 01.09.1998. Based on which a fresh draft
notification and declaration were published on 03.10.1990 and
25.10.1990 respectively, in respect of acquired lands to an extent of
Ac.11.18 guntas in survey No.266 and Ac.16.16 guntas in survey
No.280 at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District for laying approach road for industrial development area at
Jeedimetla. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition
Officer has passed the award @ Rs.70/- per square yard for survey
No.266 and Rs.75/- per square yard for survey No.280. Aggrieved
by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference
and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court
of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
5. The case of the claimants before the reference Court was that
the land that is acquired is near to the city of Hyderabad and is
surrounded by the industrial estates and residential localities and
that there are several prominent industries near the acquired land.
The lands have high potentiality for building purposes and that
their lands would fetch not less than Rs.500/- per square yard.
6. The Special Deputy Collector has filed his counter contending
that the sales statistics were called from the sub-registrar office and
that after due enquiry the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the
award and that it does not suffer from any infirmity. That there is
AKS,J & ETD,J
3
no development as put forth by the claimants and that the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer holds good.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the reference Court has framed
the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer is not reasonable and
adequate?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get the
enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate?
3. To what relief?”
8. Before the reference Court, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
9. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has
awarded Rs.170/- per square yard, apart from granting the
statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the Special
Deputy Collector has preferred LAAS No.13 of 2010, while the
claimants have preferred LAAS No.674 of 2010.
10. Heard the submissions of learned Advocate General appearing
for the Special Deputy Collector and M/s.Chandrasen Law Offices,
learned counsel appearing for the claimants.
AKS,J & ETD,J
4
11. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the
reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation and
that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just compensation
and that the acquired lands do not fetch such a high value as
alleged by the claimants. He further submitted that the claimants
have initially claimed Rs.200/- per square yard before the Land
Acquisition Officer and also the reference Court, and that later on
they got their petition amended and claimed Rs.500/- per square
yard and that the said claim is not at all justified. The claimants
could not place any evidence on record in support of their
contentions and that the documents put forth by them are
subsequent to the date of possession and notification, and that the
claimants are not entitled to interest from the date of possession in
view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.L.Jain v. DDA 1.
Learned counsel has further argued that the reference Court has
made an error in awarding 12% of the additional market value from
the date of dispossession. He therefore, prayed to confirm the
award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that their lands
have high potential and the acquired land is surrounded by the
industrial area and a residential colony and that their lands have all
the amenities like schools, hospitals, electricity, water and
1
(2004) 4 SCC 79
AKS,J & ETD,J
5
telephone connections etc. He further submitted that the Land
Acquisition Officer has failed to take the highest sales statistics that
are available and that the acquired lands would fetch more value
and have high potential for further development and therefore,
prayed to enhance the compensation.
13. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the claimants are not entitled to
additional market value @ 12% from the date of
dispossession till date of award?
3. Whether the claimants are not entitled to interest
from the date of taking possession i.e. from
14.10.1981?
4. Whether the order and decree of the reference
Court need any interference?
5. To what relief?
14. POINT NO.1:
a) The contention of the claimants is that the acquired lands are
well developed and that they are situated in close proximity to the
already developed industrial area and residential area. It is their
further contention that their land is suitable for further
development and that it would fetch a value of Rs.500/- per square
yard. In support of their case, three witnesses were examined.
AKS,J & ETD,J
6
b) PW1 reiterated the said averments in his chief affidavit. In
his cross examination it is elicited that the land was not made into
plots prior to acquisition. It is not the case of the petitioners that
their land was already converted into a residential zone by making
into plots but it is their contention that since it is nearby the
industrial area and also residential locality, their lands can fetch
more value.
c) It is elicited from PW2 that the acquired land is connected to
Narsapur State Highway Road which in turn connects the National
Highway Nos.7 and 9 and that the Narsapur road is about 200
meters from the acquired land and that prior to acquisition, the
lands near their acquired lands have been sold as house plots. It is
further elicited through him that the plots under Exs.A1 and A2 are
situated very near to the acquired land at a distance of 500 meters
and that the plot under Exs.A3 to A11 are also situated in close
proximity of less than 1 KM from the acquired land. He relied upon
Exs.A1 to A11 in proof of his case. It is elicited through his cross
examination that there are factories, AG foundaries, Mahalaxmi
Pipes, APSEB Electricity Colony and residential colonies like
Shapurnagar and Achayanagar nearby the acquired lands since
1992. It is further elicited that the neighbouring lands were divided
into house plots.
AKS,J & ETD,J
7
d) PW3 is the owner of plot No.64 admeasuring 300 square
yards in part of survey No.269 at Quthbullapur village and that he
purchased the said plot in the year 1987 and that at the time of his
purchase, the surrounding area was made into house plots and
being sold and that the acquired lands are at a distance of 400
meters from his plot and he paid consideration of Rs.150/- per
square yard. The said sale transaction is reflected in Ex.A1.
Nothing material could be elicited through his cross examination to
dislodge his evidence.
e) PW4 is the owner of plot No.65 admeasuring 489 square
yards in survey Nos.230 and 231 situated at Padmanagar colony,
Qutbullapur village. It is elicited that he paid sale consideration of
Rs.150/- per square yard. In his cross examination it is elicited
that the sale transaction is reflected in Ex.A7.
f) Considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the sale deeds
filed in proof of the said transactions under Exs.A1 and A7, it is
held that the land surrounding the acquired land, was already made
into plots and sold at Rs.150/- per square yard.
g) It is elicited from RW1 that, sales statistics were collected by
him and that by the time of acquisition, the surrounding lands were
covered by industries and that the acquired land is a part of
industrial area and that the entire area was already developed, prior
to acquisition. The Mahalaxmi Gas Induriy, RB foundry were
AKS,J & ETD,J
8
established prior to 1980 and that they are at a distance of 400
meters from the acquired lands.
h) Exs.A1 to 11 are the sale deeds pertaining to the years 1985
to 1989. The date of notification in this case is in the year 1990,
though initial notification was issued in the year 1981, the award
could not be passed for want of ULC and since, the earlier draft
declaration got lapsed, another notification was issued in the year
1990. Hence, the sales statistics of preceding three years can be
relied upon, therefore, except Ex.A1 dated 20.05.1985 all the other
sale deeds pertaining to the year 1987, 1988 and 1989 can be relied
upon and taken into consideration to fix the market value in the
present case. The value of the land under the said sale deeds is
around Rs.150/- per square yard.
i) The respondents relied upon Exs.B1 to B3 which are also the
sale deeds. A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that it refers to the sale of a
plot No.B-136 admeasuring 180 Square Yards in survey Nos.276,
277, 281 and 282 of Apuroopa Township at Jeedimetla village for a
total sale consideration of Rs.9,900/- @ Rs.55/- per square yard.
j) RW1 in his evidence has stated that he has relied upon the
sale statistics at Sl.No.194, 214, 215 ad 216 which are the adjacent
lands in survey Nos.276, 277, 281 and 282, wherein the land was
sold @Rs.56/- per square yard, Rs.60/- per square yard and
Rs.82.50/- per square yard. Thus, basing on the said sale deeds,
AKS,J & ETD,J
9
he has fixed the value @ Rs.75/- and Rs.70/- per square yard for
the acquired lands.
k) RW1 evidence discloses that he has taken the sale statistics of
the surrounding survey numbers and they are adjacent to the
acquired lands. It is also revealed from the village map under Ex.B4
that the survey numbers, under which the sale deeds of Exs.A2 to
A8 are filed, are surrounding survey numbers and it is also elicited
that the acquired lands have an access to the Narsapur main road
leading from the State Highway.
l) It is an established fact from the evidence of RW1 and also the
sale deeds relied upon by him that the land was plotted and the
sales were conducted on yardage basis, thus revealing that the
lands were in a high potentiality area. Hence, the amount awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer appears to be very low and needs
enhancement. Therefore, the enhancement made by the reference
Court is well justified and that the claimants are not entitled to any
further enhancement. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.2:
a) Another contention raised by the appellant counsel is that the
reference Court ought not to have awarded the additional market
value @ 12% from the date of possession and that it is supposed to
be granted from the date of notification.
AKS,J & ETD,J
10
b) It is pertinent to refer to Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the
same is extracted hereunder:
“23.(1-A) In addition to the market value of the
land, as above, 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”.
c) Thus, a plain reading of Section 23(1-A) would infer that 12%
of additional market value has to be awarded from the date of
publication of notification under Section 4(1) to the date of the
award of Collector or the date of taking possession of the land,
whichever is earlier.
d) In Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v. M.A.Jabbar 2,
it was held that the possession having already been taken on
15.02.1965, i.e. before publication of the notification under Section
4(1) which was on 06.03.1980, the award of additional amount for
the period from 06.03.1980 to the date of making award i.e.
30.09.1983 is perfectly correct.
e) It was observed by the Apex Court in Asstt.Commr., Gadag
Sub-Division v. Mathapathi Basavannaewwa 3 that if possession
2
(1995) 2 SCC 142
3
(1995) 6 SCC 355
AKS,J & ETD,J
11
is taken prior to the notification, then the strict construction of
Section 23(1-A) would lead to unjust result, hardship to the owner
and defeats legislative object. Therefore, in its view, the expression
“whichever is earlier” in Section 23(1-A) had to be construed in that
backdrop and the claimant is entitled to the additional amount from
the date of taking possession. Since advance possession was taken
prior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1), ‘the
claimants, by necessary implication are entitled to the payment of
the additional amount by way of compensation from the date of
taking over possession for the loss of enjoyment of the land.
f) Analyzing these two decisions, the Constitutional Bench in
Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer4
has held that from Section 23(1-A), the starting point for the
purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded @12% p.a. on the
market value is the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification.
The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or
the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the present
case, the possession of the land having been taken prior to the
publication, that terminal is not available. The only available
terminal is the date of the award. Therefore, it was held that the
appellants are entitled to the additional compensation under
Section 23(1-A) from the date of notification till date of award. By
4
(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142
AKS,J & ETD,J
12
holding so, the Apex Court has held that the decision laid down in
M.A.Jabbar (supra 2) is the correct law, while the decision
rendered in Mathapathi Basavannewwa‘s case (supra 3) has not
been correctly laid down. Thus, the Apex Court has finally held that
the additional market value has to be awarded from the date of
notification till the date of award. Therefore, the contention of the
appellant’s counsel is valid and in conformity with the law laid down
by the Apex Court.
g) In view of foregoing discussion, in the present case, it is held
that the additional market value of 12% needs to be granted from
the date of notification but not from the date of possession.
Therefore, the order of the reference Court with regard to awarding
additional market value has to be modified. Point No.2 is answered,
accordingly.
16. POINT NO.3:
a) Under Section 28 of the Act, the Court may direct that the
Collector shall pay interest on such excess amount of compensation
@ 9% per annum from the date on which possession was taken to
the date of payment of such excess amount into the Court.
b) It was held in R.L.Jain‘s case (supra 1) that publication of
notification is sine qua non for any proceedings and if possession is
AKS,J & ETD,J13
taken prior to the issuance of notification, it would not be in
accordance with the Section 16 or 17 and it will be without any
authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the
purposes of the Act. Therefore, if at all any interest has to be
awarded, it is from the date of notification, but not from the date of
dispossession, if possession is taken after notification. It was
further held that where possession is taken prior to the issuance of
the preliminary notification, it will be just and equitable that the
Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the
property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the
compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition
of the property.
c) Further, in Tahera Khotoon v. Revenue Divisional Officer 5,
the decision of R.L.Jain (supra 1) was discussed and it was further
held that the rents/damages at the rate of 15% on the
compensation is to be awarded from the date the landowners were
dispossessed till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification.
d) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.L.Jain
(supra 1) and in Tahera Khotoon (supra 5), it is held that the
claimants would be entitled for the interest from the date of
dispossession. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
5
(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 613
AKS,J & ETD,J14
17. POINT NO.4:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, the
order and decree dated 17.11.2008 passed in O.P.No.128 of 1992 by
the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar,
Hyderabad need to be modified with regard to the additional market
value and the interest. The Reference Court has awarded 12% of
additional market value from the date of possession till the date of
award, which is not tenable in the eye of law. Therefore, it is held
that the claimants are entitled for additional market value @ 12%
per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the enhanced
amount from the date of notification till the date of award. The
claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of dispossession for the first one year and thereafter 15% per
annum till the date of realization.
18. POINT NO.5:
In the result, L.A.A.S.No.13 of 2010 filed by the Special
Deputy Collector is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree
dated 17.11.2008 passed in O.P.No.128 of 1992 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, to the extent
of additional market value and the rate of interest i.e. the claimants
are entitled to additional market value @ 12% per annum under
Section 23(1-A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the
AKS,J & ETD,J15
date of notification till the date of award and with regard to the
interest the claimants are entitled to the interest on the enhanced
compensation including solatium from the date of dispossession
@ 9% per annum for the first one year and thereafter @ 15% till the
date of realization. The remaining award so far as the
compensation awarded by the reference Court shall stand
confirmed. L.A.A.S.No.674 of 2010 filed by the claimants is
dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 28.03.2025
ns