The High Court · 2025

.IIIDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice nrumala Deui tuda) This appeal, under Section 54 of the L^and Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, SRSP, Pochampad, Nizamabad District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.12.2OLL passed in O.P.No. 12 of 2O06 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition made by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Division Land Acquisition Rehabilitation SRSP Pochampad, the agricultural Iands at Temborni Village have been acquired, for the purpose of submergence under Sriramsagar Project. Draft notification and draft declaration proposals have been published in the Gazette on

19.11q1999 and 2O.1 1.1999 respectively. After conducting due t enquiry, the Land Acquisition Oflicer has granted Rs.9,000/- per acre besides statutory benehts. Aggrieved by the said award, the I -::;J . '?-: 2 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No. 2 75-2014 claimants have lrled a petition for reference and the szune was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal.

4. The Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration: Whetlrcr the compensation awarded W the Land Acquisition Off... to ttre claimants needs any enhancement, if so' what would be just and reasonable compensation? 2 To what reliel?"

5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWl and got marked Ex.A1. On the other hand, the respondents got examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex'Bl'

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs'9,OOO/ - p€r acre to Rs.20,OO0/- per acre and a,lso grartted additional market value @l2o/o per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the market value from the date of notification or date of Possession rvhichever is earlier till the date of award' Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present aPPeal. I ,o 3 A(S,J & ETDJ LAAS No.275 2014 7 . Heard the submissions of learned Government pleader for the appellant and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counSel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation ald it has simply taken into consideration, another award passed by the Court for the lands acquired in an adjacent village and went ahead in enhancing the compensation to Rs.2O,O00/_ per acre, which is contrary to law. Learned counsel further argued that the additional market value cannot be granted from the date of possession but it can only be considered from the date of notification and also that the interest cannot be awarded from the date of possession. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the reference Court by allowing this appeal.

9. karned counsel for the respondents has subriritted that the Reference Court has rightly considered Ex.Al and has enhanced the market value and that the facts of the said Op are similar to the present case and hence, the order and decree passed by the reference Court do not need any interference, and therefore, prayed to uphold the same_ I \ I i I I I I i ! I T 4 AKs,' & ETDJ I-AAS No.275 2014

10. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 3 4 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the claimants ane not entitled to additional market value @l2o/o from the date of dispossession till date of realization? Whether the claimants are not entitled to the interest from the date of dispossession till date of realization? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

5. To what relieP

11. PIOINT NOS.l AIID 2: a) The record discloses that on 18.02.1976, the possession of agricultural lands in Temborni village was acquired by the irrigation authorities in pursuance to a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Land Acquisition, DNSRP, Pochampad. The Land Acquisition Ofircer has passed the award on 3O.03.2O05 but the award with regard to the lands under reference was deferred on the ground that they are the Poramboke lands. Thereafter, the pattadars frled petition along with Faisal patti, Pahani patrak and Ietter addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer requesting to make payment of compensation. Thereupon, draft notifrcation and draft l t() 5 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.275 2014 declaration were published on 19.11.1999 arrd 2}.ll.Iggg respectively. b) The claimants before the Reference Court have not filed any sale deeds for reference. So also no sales statistics are reflected in the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer as revealed from Ex.AI. It is elicited that no sales transactions took place in the preceding three years as on the date of draft notification, because the entire village was under sub-mergence. Ex.Al further reveals that Land Acquisition ofrrcer has relied on the market varue fixed b5r the reference Court in O.p.No.729 of l9g4 wherein the rate of wet double crop lands were hxed (@Rs.9,OOO/- per acre. c) The claimants, on the other hand, have relied upon the orders passed by the reference Court in O.p.No.O7l2000 relating to the land in the same village d) RWl/claimant has stated in his evidence that he used to produce paddy crop and get an income of Rs. 1O,O0O/_ per acre after deducting all expenses. e) RW2 is one of the claimants in O.p.No.O7 of 2OO0 and he deposed that his lancl and the tand of the claimants are in the same village and adjacent lo each other, both lands are similar in nature and fertility. *\ 6 AKSJ & ETO,J IAAS No.275 2014 0 PWI is the referring ollicer in th€ case on hand, he admitted that the entire village was submerged. He furtJrer stated that the land owners who lost their lands for the same purpose are entitled to receive sarne amount of compensation without any discrimination. Ex.BI i.e. certilied copy of judgment in O.P.No.O7 of 2000 dated 17.04.2006 is considered by the reference Court and thus, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per acre. d The lirst contention raised by the appellant coursel is that the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation based on the judgment pertaining to earlier O.P. whereunder, ttre lands of another village were acquired. A perusal of the record reveals that both the villages are adjacent to one another and the purpose for acquisition is one and the same i.e. submergence under Sriramsagar project. Therefore, the contention of the appellant counsel cannot be considered in this regard. h) Then the second contention raised by the appellants counsel is with regard to the additional market value i.e. granted by the reference Court from the date of dispossession to the date of realization i) I t is pertinent to refer Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: r') 7 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No.275 2014 "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 thc date of taking possession ofthe land, shichever is earlier". j) Thus, a plain reading of Section 23(1-A) would infer thaL 72Yo of additional market value has to be awarded from the date of publication of notification under 4( 1) to the date of the award of Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. k) In Speclal Tahslldor (IA), P.W.D. Schemes a. M.A.Jdbbart, it was held that the possession having already been taken on 15.02. f 965, i.e. before publication of the notihcation under Section 4(1) which was on 06.03.1980, rhe 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. l) It was observed by the Apex Court in Asstt.Cotnmr., Ga.dog Sub-DhtlsTon a. Dlat tclpo,thl Basa uannaewwa2 that if possession is taken prior to the notification, then the strict constn-rction of 23(l-A) would lead to unjust result, hardship to the owner and rlffilt scc 142 scc 355 8 AKSJ & ETD,J LAA5 No.275 2014 defeats legislative object. Therefore, in its view, tl-re 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 notilication under 4(I), 'the claimants, by necessary implication are entitled to the pa5rment of the additional amount by way of compensation from the date of taking over possession for the loss of enjo5rment of the land. m) Analyzing these two decisions, the Constitutional Bench in Siddappa Va.soppa Kw-l v. Speclal La.nd Acqulsltton OtJlcefi has held that from Section 23( 1 -A), the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded @l2Vo 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. Therefo're, 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 holding so, the Apex Court has held that the decisioa 3 (2OO2I4 Supreme Court Cases 142 ( 9 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.275 2014 lald down in M.A.Jabbar lsupra 1l is the correct law, while the decision rendered in Mathagathi Basa vo;nnetuuto,s case (supra 2) has not been correctly laid down. Thus, the Apex Court has frnally 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. n) In view of foregoing discussion, in the present case, it is held that the additional market value of 127o needs to be granted from the date of notifrcation but not from the date of possession.

12. . POTITT NQ.3: a) With iegard to the interest that is to be awarded. It was held in R.L..Ialn o. DDAa tlat publication of notihcation is sine qua non for any proceedings and if possession is 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. 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 o 11qoa) a scc zs J I i. l i 10 AI(5J & ETD,J IAAS No.275_2014 6 Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation anount payable to tlre landowner for the acquisition of the property. b) Further, in Taherq Khotoon o. Reoenue Dinlslonal OtficeF, the decision of R.L.Jaln (supra 4) was discussed and it was further held that the rents/damages at the rate of 15%o on the compensation is to be awarded from the date the landowners were dispossessed till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notifrcation. c) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.L.Ja,tn (supra 4) and in Tahera Khotoon (supra 5), it is held t]1at the claimants would be entitled for the interest from the date of dispossession. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

13. PTOIIIT NO.4: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No. I to 3, the order and decree dated 22.12.2O1I passed in O.P.No. L2 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal need to be modified with regard to the additional market value and the interest. The Reference Court has awarded 72o/o of additional market value from the date of possession till the date of award, which is not tenable in \ t ( +) r: srpr"." court cases 613 I 77 AKS,J & ETDJ |AAS No.275 2014 the eye of law. Therefore, it is held t}lat the claimants are entitled for additional market value @ l2o/o per annum under Section 23( 1-A) of the Act on the enhanced amount from the date of notihcation till the date of award. The claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of dispossession for the first one year and thereafte r @ l5o/o per annum till the date of realization.

14. FOII{T NO. t: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifoing the order and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed in O.p.No. t2 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal, to the extent of additional market value and the rate of interest i.e. the claimants are entitled to additional market value @ l2%o per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the act on the enhalced compensation from the date of notification till the date of award and with regard to the interest the claimalts are entifled to the interest on rhe enhanced compensation including solatium from the date of dispossession @;) 9o/o per annum for the first one year and thereafter (.r) 15% till the date of realization. The remaining award so far as the compensation awarded by the reference Court shall stand conhrmed. No costs. t2 A|GJ & €TO,J tAAs No.275 2014 G Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K,SRINIVAS/RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \./\V SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal 2. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to SRI V MANOHAR RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copie ADK ry . i t I t I I I I I I I I I I i I I i i I I ! j i I I I i I t 1 ,1 s s* '/,. 1+ t; 2 DRAFTS HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ..: rJ I JUDGMENT+DEC \ \,-: LAAS.No.275 of 201[ ,) -) rj'--,\t PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS n U) ro\u\ (