The High Court · 2025

Judgment

(Per Honourable Sri Justice Yakiti Ramalqishna Reddy) This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the Order and Decree dated 19.01.1984 passed in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, , Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court").

2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "LAO") liom Rs. 1,3201- per acre to Rs.3,500/- in respect of dry lands and flrom Rs.2,720l- to Rs.5,000/- in respect of wet lands, which were acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam (LMD) Reservoir \ \ -2- KL,J&VRKR,J UAS No.226 2008

3. Aggrieved by the said enhancement being inadequate, the present Appeal is filed by the Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the claimant/original owner. FA I. 4. The App'ellants herein are the legal heirs of the petitioner in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 before the Reference Court by virtue of a succession certificate obtained by them vide O.P.No.394 of 1997. The lands of the petitioner therein (father of the appellants) in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 i.e., the lands situated in Hasanpur Village, Karimangar District, were acquired for the purpose of submergence under L.M.D. Reservoir. The details of the acquired lands are as under: Sy. No. Nature of Land 6t4l A 44t 442 40 528 399 220 2481A Drv Dry Drv Dry Dry Dry WSC Extent (Ac.-ets) 0-04 l,-20 3-39 r-30 2-t2 0-25 % 0-06 Y, 0-04 II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD: 5. A notification under section a(1) of the Acq was published on

24.03.1977, followed by issuance of notices under sections 9(3) and l0 of the Act, after which an award enquiry was conducted. -3- KL,J& VRK&J DUS No.226 2008

6. Subsequentl.y, the LAO passed an award dated 15.07.1978 in respect of acquired lands, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1,3201- per acre for dry lands and Rs.5,000/- for wet lands. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 865 of 1982 before the Reference Court. IIL porNT FOR CONSTpERATION B.EFOB4 THE REFERENCE COURT:

7. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following point for consideration for determination: "Whether there are reasonable grounds for enhancing the compensation granted by the L.A.O'? IV. EVIDENCE BEFORE REF'ICRICNCE, COIIRT:

8. To substantiate his claim for higher compensation, the claimant himself was examined as PWI and got rnarked Exs.Al and A2 on his behalf and whereas, on behalf of the respondent-State, RWl was examined and no documents were marked. i' -a- KL,J&YRKR,J LA,IS No.226 2008 V.

9. The Reference court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the lands of tlasanpur village under acquisition were correctly classified by the LAo as dry and wet single crop lands based on revenue records and personal inspection. There was no dispute regarding such classification. The Court noted that the claimant, who was examined himself as pwl, asserted that the acquired lands were fertile and situated close to Karimnagar town, where he cultivated maize, chillies, and vegetables in the dry lands and two paddy crops in the wet lands, yielding substantial income. However, the claimant did not produce any sale deeds to substantiate his claim regarding the prevailing market value.

10. The Reference court considered the evidence placed by both parties and particularly relied upon Ex. AZ, a certified copy of the decree in o.P. No.1 of 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, which determined higher rates for similar lands of Hasanpur village. Although such judgment was not binding, the Coun treated it as a guiding factor, observing that comparable awards for neighboring lands could serve as a reasonable basis for assessment, -5- KL,J & YRK&J UAS No.226_2008 provided the fertitity, potentiality, and locational advantages were similar

11. Taking into account the nature of the acquired lands, their fertitity, the crops raised, proximity to Karimnagar town, and their potential for future non-agricultural use, the Reference Court concltrded that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Offrcer was inadequate.

12. Consequently, the Reference was allowed in part enhancing the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.1,320/- to Rs.3,500/- per acre in respect of dry lands and from Rs.2,7201- to Rs.5,000/- in respect of wet lands along with L5% solatium on the enhanced amount and intere st at 4o/o per annum from the date of possession.

13. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.1984 passed by the Reference Court, the legal heirs of the claimant/FWl, have preferred the present Appeal for flurther enhancement of compensation. vI. A) t4. The learned counsel fbr the Appellants submitted that the Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired lands -5- ,KL,J&YRKR,J L4AS No.226_2008 at Rs.3,500/- per acne for dry lands and Rs.5,000/- per acre for wet single crop lands. It is further contended that the Reference Court failed to grant adequate compensation by taking into consideration the fertility, potentiality and locational advantages of close proximity to Karimnagar Town in respect of the acquired lands.

15. It was further contended that the Reference Court failed to maintain uniformity and parity with other similarly sinrated land holders whose lands were acquirgd under the yme section 4 (1) Notification. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the later judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Krishno Reddy and others v. Special DepW Collector, Land Acquisition (Jnit-II, L.M.D., Korimnagay' substantially higher compensation was upheld for lands acquired under same project, the market value fixed by the Reference Court requires suitable enhancement in this appeal.

16. The leamed counsel for the Appellants additionally urged that the Reference Court omitted to grant statutory benefits of solatium, additional market value and interest as mandated under Section 'rgga {a) scc 163 -7- KL,J&I/RKR"J LAAS No.226_200! 23 (l-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. It was contended that the Reference Court failed to apply the principle laid down in 19SS (2) A.L.T. 29, wherein it was held that claimants in identical land acquisition proceedings are entitled to claim the benefit of a higher compensation fixed in connected cases under Section 54 of the Act.

17. on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has prayed that, the appeal may be allowed by furttrer enhancing the compensation amount in respect of acquired lands. B)

18. The learned Governrnent Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, contended that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was just, reasonable, and based on proper appreciation of evidence. [t was submitted that the Reference Court had already enhanced the market value substantially from the amount originally fixed by the LAo, after considering the fertility, location, and cultivation pattern of the acquired lands. Hence, there was no justification for any further enhancemenr as claimed by the appellants. t -8- KI4JA. YRKRJ UIS No.226J008

19. It is furttrer submifted that the Judgments relied upon by the appelrants, incruding those of the Honourable supreme court and trre High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra pradesh, pertain to different nature of rands, where the rands were situated in more advantageotis locations and has distinct potentiarities. It is arso asserted that the acquired rands in the present case, though fertile, were purery agricurturar in nature and situated at a distance from the main town, and therefore courd not be equated with rands invorved in other cases, where compensation was fixed at Rs.25,000A per acre. 20' It is further contended that the LAo had properry reried upon registered sare transactions that reflected the prevailing market vulue in the village of Hasanpur at the rerevant time, and those sare deeds were duly verified during the award enquiry. Thus, fixation ofmarket value at Rs. r,320/- per acre for dry rands and Rs.2, 7zor-per acre for wet lands was based on sale exemplars in the locality. 21' on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Leamed Government preader for Appears has prayed that, there being no merit in the present appear, the same deserves to be dismissed -9- KL,J&'/RKR.J LttASNo.226 2008 VIL POINTS FOB DETERMINATION:

22. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: t. Whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of comperuation to Rs.25,000/- per acre on the strength of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy's case (supra) which is covered by the same subieet notification under sectton 4 (l) of the Act? ii. Whether the appellants ore entitled to parity in comperutation treatment with other similarly situated land owners whose lands were acquired under the same Section 4 (l) notification? iit. Whether the appellants are entitled to the statutory benefits of solatium, additional market value and interest as mandated under the Aat, and the iudiciat precedents governing such benefits. VI[. ANALYSIS AITID FINDINGS:

23. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants/claimants and learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the Respondent and \ ,1. j I -l(> KLJAYRKR,J LAIS No.226_200E also examined the record of the case, irrcruding the pleadings, oral evidence of PWI and RWl, documentary evidence under Exs.Al and /^2. fssue No. (I)r 24- At the outset, the rands o[ the craimants were acquired for the purpose of submergence under L.M.D. Reservoir, pursuant to a notification under Section a(l) of the Act dated 24.03.1977. The appellants contended that the Reference court failed to grant compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre, though the Honourable supreme court in K. Krishno Reddy,s case (supro) in respect of the v€ry szlme acquisition under the Lower Manair Dam project and involving lands sit,ated in Hasanpur village, had categorically fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre.

25. It is not in dispute that the present acquisition also pertains to lands covered by the same Section 4( r ) notification and for the same public purpose. However, the award of the Reference Coun preceded the Judgment in K. Krishna Reddy's cose (supra). Therefore, tlrere was no occasion for the Reference court to apply the ratio laid down -11- KL,J&YRKR"J UAS No.226 2008 by the Honourable Apex Court in K. Krishna Reddy's case (supra) while determining cornpensation in the present case.

26. However, in appellate jurisdiction, this Court may take into account subsequent authoritative pronouncements that clarify the tegal basis for valuation. The lands involved in K. Krishna Reddy's case (supro) were acquired under the same project and same Section 4 (l) notification.

27. The Honourable Supreme Court upheld substantially higher compensation in K. Krishna Reddy's case (supra), reflecting fertility, potentiality and location of these project affected lands. The appellants' lands being similarly situated, the principles laid down therein apply to this appeal. Issue No. (2): Parity of treatment:

28. The appellants claim that in view of the ratio laid down by the Honor,rrable Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy's cose (supra), wherein the Apex Court, while considering the acquisition of lands in Hasanpur and neighbouring villages under the same notification, had categorically fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre for all \ \ -L2- KL,J&YRKR,J ItUSNo.226 2(W categories of lands, irrespective of their classification as dry or wet, they are entitled for the same amount of compensation.

29. The principle of parity is well-settled. The lands which are acquired under the same notification, with similar physical characteristics, must receive uniform compensation unless distinguishing features exist.

30. The respondent/State has not demonstrated any material distinction between the lands of the appellants and those considered in K. Krishna Reddy's case (supra). Uniformity in compensation must, therefore be maintained.

31. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of acquired lands at Rs.25,000/- per acre. Difference in the fixation of market varue in respect of acquired rands situated in the same locality for same purpose reads to arbitrary and unequal treatment among land owners, whose lands were acquired under the same notification and for the very same pubric pulpose, thereby violating the principres of uniformity and parity which are fundamental to the scheme of the Act. -13- KL,J&YRKR,J LAAS No.226_2008 lssue No. (3): Statutory benefits:

32. The contention of the appellants that the Reference Court also failed to award statutory benefits such as solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 189'4, is sustainable. It is noticed that the Reference Court granted solatium only at 15% on the enhanced compensation and interest rate at 4Yo per annum as per the un-amended provisions of the Act. However, since the date of the Reference Court's award i.e. 19.01 .1984 falls within the transitional period of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, once the compensation is re-determined, the claimants agtomatically become entitled to the amended,statutory benefits. These include solatium at 30% solatium under Section z3(2) and interest at 9o/o per annum for the f,rrst year from the date of taking possession and l5o/o per annum thereaftertillthedateofrealizationasprovidedunderSection23of theAct.Atthesametimetheclairnantsarenotentitledtothe additionat amount at l\o/oper annrm under Section 23(1-A)'

33. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v' Raghubir Singhz, considered the issue as to whether the enhanced rate of solatium,theincreasedrateofinterest,ffidtheadditionalmarket 'ltete;2 scc 75'l \ \ -L- KL,J&YRKR,J LAAS No.226 2N8 value introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, l9g4 (in short 'Act, 1984') could be extended to awads that were pending or made during the transitional period. The Honourable Court while interpreting Section 30 Q) of the Amendment Act, observed as : follows: "3l.In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the coilector referred to here is the award made by the coilector under section t r of the parent Act, and the avard made by ttu Court is the award made by the Principal ctvtl court of origtnat Jurisdtction under section 23 of the parent Act on a reference made to it by the coilecror under section l9 of the parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhonced solattum is tntended by section 30(2) in respect of an autard made by the collector between 30-4-tgg2 and 24_9_ 1984. Likewtse, the beneJit of the enhanced soratium is extencred hy section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court betv,een 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, even though it be upon re.ferettce.from an award made before 30-4-Igg2."

34. Further, in the case of (. s. poripoornan (II) v. state of Keraro and Otherf,the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the legal position regarding the applicability of Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act, 1984 holding as under: "4. This Court thereby clearly held that even in the pending reference made before 30-4-tgg2. ;r ' ,. civil court make.r 3 lless; I scc 367 L -ls- KL,J&YRKR,J LAAS No.226_2N8 an award between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, section 30(2) gets attracted and thereby the enhanced solatiurn was available to the claimants. since Section 30(2) deals with both the amendments to Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Prtnetpal Act by Section IS(b) and Section 18, respectively, of the Amendment Act by parity of the reaso.ning the same ratto applies to the awards made by the civil court between those dates. The con/lict of dectsions as to whether Section 23(2) as amended by Section l5(b) of the Amendment Act through section 30(2) of the transitory provisions would be applicable to the pending appeals in the High court and the Supreme Court was resolved tn Raghubtr Singh case, by. the constitution Bench hotding that the award of the collector or the court made between 13-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 would alone get attrocted to section 30(2) of the transitory provision. The restricted interpretation should not be understood to mean that section 23(2) woutd not apply to the antard of the civir court pending at the time when the Act came intoforce or thereafter. In this c:ase, admittedly the award of the civil court was made after the Act has come intoforce, namely.2A-2-1985. i. Therefore, f the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the collector ought to have awarded as compewation, is tn excess' oJ the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the courl shall direct the collector to pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9ok per annum from the date on which the Collector rook possession of the rand to the date of payment of such excess into the court. By operation of the provist, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into the court after the date of expiry of a period of one year ftom the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of t50% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one \ \ L -16. KL,J&YRKR"J LAASNo.226 2008 year on the amount of suc,h excess or Wrt thereof which has not been paid into the court before the date of such exptry. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced interest @ 9% from the date of taking possesston, namely, I5-l-1981 and t t -3- I 98 t respectively for one year and thereafter @ I 5% till the date of the deposit made by the Collecnr. Admittedly, thte deposit of the enhanced compensatton was made on 20-10-1986 and 3- l2-t986. Therefore, the interest shall be calculated at the enhanced rates for the aforesatd period.

6. The question relating to the payment of 12% additional compensation wrder Section 23(l-A) over the excess compensation has already been covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Cotrt in KS. Paripoornan (t) v. State of Kerala. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to this benefit as the Collector made the award prior to the date of the Amendment Act came intoforce.

35. In the case of Lilawati Agarwal v. State of Jharkhan/, the Honourable Supreme Court, while affrrming the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh's case (supra) and f.^S. Paripoornan's case (supra), reiterated that the applicability of the enhanced solatium, additional amount and increased rate of interest introduced by the Amendment Act, 1984 is strictly governed by the transitional provisions under Section 30 of the Amendment Act. The Court held as under: n (zoro) 6 scc 566 -17' KL,J&YRKR,J IIAS No.226 2008 " 10. On a perusal of the principle stated in Raghubir Singh case and what has been clarified in K.S. Paripoornan (2) case, we do not find that the three-Judge Bench decision runs counter to the authority in the Constitution Bench. It also does not give a dffirent interpretation to Sectinn 30(2) than what hos been stated by the Constitution Bench. In fact, K.S. Paripoornan (2) clearly postulates about the awards that have been passed by the court after the Act has come into force whtch ts in consononce with the ratio laid down in Raghubir Stngh case. The tlree-Judge Bench has only observed that the restricted interpretation placed by the Constitution Bench'in Raghubir Singh should not convey that Section 23(2) woutd not apply to the av'ards of ttre civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. Thu.;, the controversy with which the three-Judge Bench was dealing with was absolutely different and tlrc view expressed by it is absolutely in accord with the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh case. Additionally, it is also in consonance'with the provisions contained in Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, we do not see ony reason to disagree with the view expressed in KS. Paripoornan (2) as we ore of the convinced opinion that it has appo.sitely understood the rule exposited in Raghubir Singh case.

12. The High Courr by the impugned judgment lws 9pined tlat the principle stated in K.S. Paripoornan (2) would not be applicable. The saicl view is perceptibly erroneous. We are of the constdered opinion thctt the appellant shall be entitled to the berufits as per the law laid down in K.S. Paripoornan (2)3. It is not disputed at the Bar that the appellants arc not entitled to the benetits under Section 23(l-A) in view of the decision in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala.

27. In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord v,ith the sound principles of interpretation. Hence, the \ .\\ \ i -18- KL,J&YRKR"J UAS No.226 2008 person entitled to the compenscttion owarded ts qlso entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly.',

36. In the light of the principles laid down in Raghubir singh,s case (supra); r(.s. paripoornan's cose (supra) and reaffirmed in Litawati Agorwal'scase (supra), it is evident that the benefits of the Amendment Act, 1984 can be extended only if the award of the collector or the civir court falrs within the statutory window created under section 30(z),,namely, awards made between 30.04. t9g2 and 24-09.1984. [n the present case, although the award of the collector dated 15.07.1978 falls outside the window, the decree of the Reference court dated 19.01.19g4 squarely falls within the transitional period. consequentry, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced solatium under Section 23e) and the increased rate of interest under Section 28 as amended by Act, 19g4. However, in view of the ratio laid down in .K.,s. paripoornanrs cose, the additional amount under Section 23(l-A) cannot be granted since the award of the collector was made prior to 30.04. lggz.Thus, the amended solatium and interest are applicable to the present case, but the additional market value under Section 23(t-A)is not. -19- KL,J & VRK&J I"4,lS No.226_2N8 rx.

37. This court concludes that the valuation adopted by the Reference Court, does not reflect the fair market value. The ratio,in K. Krishna Reddy's case (supro),being applicable to lands acquired under the same notification for the same project, must necessarily be applied in the present case to ensure consistency, parity and fairness.

38. Such uniformity ensures fairness, equity, and legal consistency in terms of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.

39. The appellants are also entitled to all statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, lgg4 which were not granted by the Reference Court, in its order. Il X. R"ESULT:

40. Accordingly, the appeal is ailowed in part. The order and t I decree of the Reference Court dated 19.01.1994 passed in o.p.No.g65 of 1982 is set aside to the extent of valuation, and the compensation is re-determined at Rs.25,000/- per acre, with all consequential statutory benefits, such as solatium at 30Yo together with intere st at 9yo per \ \ -an KL,J & I/RK& J LAIS No.226_2008 annum for the first year from the date of taking possessio n and rsyo per annum thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections 23Q) and2g of the Act. 4r- The enhanced compensation and statutory benefits shall be computed and paid within rhree (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shalr carry further interest as admissible in law. There shall be no order as to costs- As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed. SD/. C.V. MATLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Subordinate Judge, Karimnag.ar(y]lh records, if any) 2. One CC to SRt V nn6UU, AJvocate tOpUCI 3. rwo ccs to GpfoR nppEnls, High'courttor the state of rerangana at . _!{Vderabad [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies I ADK/PSL .l l,fl HIGH COURT DATED:15112;12025 S o C) * 0 7 rEB 2026 ;l'' JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS LAAS.No.226 of 2008 PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WTHOUT COSTS \ 9,o \, [ 34s4 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD : MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO T}.IOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

1. Manda Kanakaiah, S/o.Manda Veeraiah Sengareni, @c: Labour R/o.B lnklane, 1943 St-2 Godavarikani, Karimnagar Dist-rict. '

2. Manda Maltaiah, S/o.Manda Veeraiah R/o.Markondayanagaram, Karimnagar District. AND The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-ll,Karimnagar. ...Appellants/Claimant ...Respondent Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894, against the Judgment and decree dated 19.01.1984 made in L.A..O.P. No. 865 of 1982 on thefile of the courtof the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V RAGHU, Advocate for the Appellants and of GP FOR APPEALS, for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the LAAS be and hereby is partly allowed; 2. That the order and decree of the Reference Court dated 19.0'1.1984 passed in O.P.No.865 of 1982 is set aside to the extent of valuation, and the compensation is redetermined at Rs.25,000/- per acre, with all consequential statutory benefits, such as solatium at 30% together with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act;

3. That the enhanced compensation and statutory benefits shall be computed and paid within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry further interest as admissible in law;

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFF]CER To, '1. The Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL t f HIGH COURT DATED:1511212025 DECREE LAAS.No.226 of 2008 PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS h r\ ro &o \