The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri V. Manohar Rao The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT j [B (c-,ct HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRI,IMALI\ DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.488 of 2O13 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smr. Justice Tirumala Deui EarTa) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land 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 Ol.O3.2Ol2 passed in O.P.No.OS of 2O06 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal (hereinafter referred to as the Reference CourtJ.

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 lands of the claimanis in Godesera Village, Lokeshwaram Mandal have been acquired, for the purpose of submergence under Sriramsagar Project. A draft notifrcation and draft declaration proposals have been published in the Gazette on 05. 1 1 .2OO2 ar-.d 06.11.2002 respectively. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition r has granted Rs.3,5O0/- per acre including statutory Ofhce I I A(S,I & ETDJ IAAS No.488-2013 2 benehts. Aggrieved by the said award' the claimants have filed a petition for refcrence ald the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nirmai'

4.TheReferenceCourthasframedthefollowingpointfor consideration: Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition needs any enhancement' if so' what i;ir,*; ;. th. woutd be just and reasonable compensation? "l.i-.ttt" To r,r,hat reliel?" L 2

5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWl and got marked Ex.Al' 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'3'50O/- per acre to Rs. 16,000/ - per acre and also granted additional market value @12o/o per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the entire compensation from the date of possession till the date of award' Aggrieved b1, the said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has Preferred the Present aPPeal' 7 Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the t}le appellant and respondents. 4 3 AKS,J & ETD,,' LAAS No.488 2013 l*arrred counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

8. reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation and it has simply taken into consideration another award passed by the Court for the lands acquired in an adjacent vitlage and went ahead in. enhancing the compensation to Rs'16,000/- per acre, which is contrary to law. lrarned 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 notihcation 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' g. l,earned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly considered Ex'Al and has enhanced themarketvalueandthatthefactsofthesaid0Paresimilarto 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.

10. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: . Whether the claimants are not entitled for 1 enhancement of comPensation? ,/ '/ 4 AXs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.488 2013 2 3 4 5 Whether the claimants are 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? To what reliel?

11. POINT NOs.l AND 2: a) The record discloses that on lT.O3.lgZ3, the possession of agricultural lands of the claimalts in Godesera village of Lokeshwaram Mandal was acquired by the irrigation authorities in pursu€rnce to a requisition made by Deputy Executive Engineer, Division Land Acquisition Rehabilitation SRSp pochampad. The l,and Acquisition Ofhcer has passed the award on 17.03.1973 but the award with regard to the lands under reference was deferred on the ground that they are the government assigned lalds. Thereafter, the pattadars filed writ petition before this Court, which was allowed and the writ appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed. The Special Leave petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on OZ.OS.2OO2. Then the draft notification and draft declaration were published in the gazatte on

05.lI.2OO2 and 06.1 1.20O2 respectively. \-_ 5 AKs,J & ETD,J IAAS No.488_2013 b) The claimants before the Reference Court have not filed any saie deeds for reference. So also no sales statistics are reflected in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Oflicer as revealed from Ex.A I . 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.A1 further reveals that Land Acquisition officer has relied on the market value fixed by the reference Court in O.p.No.3O3 of 1984 dated 29.08. 1986 wherein the rate of dry lands was hxed @Rs.3,SOO/_ per acre and the order of the reference Court was conhrmed by this Court. c) The claimants, on the other hand, have relied upon the orders passed by the reference Court in O.p.No.3S of 7992 relating to Noram Mohalla Village of same mandal i.e. Lokeshwaram. d) RWI has stated in his evidence that the acquired lands are very fertile and are suitable to grow commercial crops. It is also the case of the daimants that they used to grow commercial crops and eam Rs.1O,O00/- per acre. RWl has further admitted that Noram Mohalla village is just 1 KM away from Godesera village and that the nature of the iands in both the villages is the same. I 6 LdqS No.48a-201J e) RW2 is one of the claimants in O'P'No'3S of 1992 and he deposed that their land was acquired for the same purpose i'e' for sub-mergence under Sriramsagar project and the draft notifrcation in the s4id case was pubtished on 26'11'1990, which is 12 years prior to the notihcation in the present case' It is elicited through RW2 that the acquired land in the present case is just half KM away from his land. PWl is the referring oflicer in the case on hand' he admitted 0 that both the villages are adjacent villages' Therefore' since the lands in both the villages were acquired for the same purpose simultaneously i.e. for submergence under Sriramsagar 'project' Ex.B1 i.e. the award passed in O.P'No'35 of 1992 is considered by the reference Court and thus, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1O,O0O/- Per acre. g) The frrst contention raised by the appellant counsel is that the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation based on the award pertaining to earlier O P' whereunder' the lands of alother 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 and \ I 1 I 7 7 AKs,J & ETD,J IAAS No.488 2013 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) It is pertinent to refer Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "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 earlie/. j) Thus, a plain reading of Section 23(1-A) would infer that l2%o 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. | I * I |^\, ..1 8 AKs,J & ETD,J IAAS No.488_2013 k) In Speclal Tq.h.slldar (IA), p.W.D. Schemcs o. M.A.Jabborr, it was held that the possession having already been taken on 15.02.1965, i.e. before publication of the notification under Section a(1) which was on 06.03.1980, the award of additional amount for tl're 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.Commr., Gadag SulrDlulsion v. Itratlupathl Basant<rnnaeurutaa that if possession is taken prior to the notification, then the strict construotion 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 datt: of taking possession. Since advance possession was taken prior to the publication of notjfication under 4(1), .the claimants, bv 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. ) ) ' 1t99s1 z scc taz ' (rsgs) o scc gss I 9 A(S,J & ETD,J LAAS No.488_2013 m) Analyzing these two decisions, the Constitutional Bench in Stddappa Vasappa Kurl a. Spectal Land Acquisttion Officefi has held that from Section 23( 1-A), the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded @l2o/o p'a: on the market value is the date of publication of Section 4(1) notilication. 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 ttre 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 holding so, the Apex Court has held that the decision laid down in M.A.Jabbar (supra 1f is the correct law, while the decision rendered in Mathapathi Basauanneu)u)a's case (supra 2) has not been correctly laid down. Thus, the Apex Court has finatly held that tJle 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. t lzooz) t Supreme court cases 142 10 AKs,J & ETD,J I-AAS No.488_2013 r\ n) In view of foregoing discussion, in the present case, it is held that the additional market value of l2o/o needs to be gralted from the date of notification but not from the date -of possession. 12- POINT NO.3: al With regard to the interest tlat is to be awarded. It was held in R.L.Jaln u. DDAa that publication of notification is sine cyta 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 L7 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 notiflcation, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may aiso 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. b) Furtherr, in Talera Khotoon u. Reucnue Dlvlsional office , I F the decision of R.L.Jaln (supra 4) was discussed and it '(zooq) a scc zs t 120141 13 Supreme Coun Cases 613 11 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.488 2013 I was further held that the rents/damages at the rate of 157o on the compensation is to be awarded from the date the landowners were dispossessed till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification. c) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.LJaln (supra 4) and in Tahera Khotoon (supra 5), it is held that the ciaimants would be entitled for the interest from the date of dispossession. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. I3. POINT NO.4: In view of tl're reasoned linding arrived at point Nos. 1 to 3, the order and decree of the reference Court dated 01.03.2012 passed in O.P.No.OS 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 72%o 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 va|ue @l2o/o per annum under Section 23(l-Al of the Act on the enhanced amount from the date of notilication 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 thereafter 157o per annum till the date of realization. I I

14. POINT NO.S: - \ In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree of the reference Court, dated O1.03.2012 passed in O.P.No.OS 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 @ l2o/o per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the date of notilication 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%o per annum for the first one year and thereaftr: r @ l5o/o till the date of realization. The remaining award so far as the compensation awarded by the reference Court shall stand confirmed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIS TRAR SECTI o FICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ' iFor His Lordship's kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA '(For His LordshiP's kind Perusal) I To,

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6. hw'Ka

7. m/ The Senior Civil Judge, at Nirmal.(with records, if any) Two CCs to GP Foh APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri V Manohar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 1'1 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. Two CD Copies I I HIGH COURT DATED:061031i2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.488 of 2013 ( t J o (.) Y+ t 1 HE srA 16 12 ,luii 2u25 v C) {)ESFAIC t PARTLY ALT-OWING THE APPEAL @ 0 [ 3445 ] tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No : 488 of 2013 Between: The Special Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer' O/o SPSP ' Pochampad' Nizamabad District ...Appellanfl Referring Officer AND l.GainiChinnaYellaiah'S/o.Venkaiah,Age:76years'Occ:Agriculture'Caste lvlala, R/o.Godesera Village. (Died) per LR 11 brought on record as per Court order dated 7-8-20't3 vide CMP No.1185 of 2013 2 P.Ragavendar Rao, S/o.Govinda Rao' Age:56 years' Occ: Agriculture' Caste Brahim, R/o.Godesera Village

3. Saya Goud, S/o Mutha Goud, Age:Bl years, Caste:Goud' (died by LR of C-9) 4. Surelli Monawa, Wo.Rama, Age:78 years, Occ: Agriculture' Caste:Mala' R/o.Godesera Village. (Died) per LR R'l2 brought on record as per Court Order dated 7-8-13 vide CMP.No.1'184 oI 2013-

5. K.Gangadhar, S/o.Bhoiang Rao, Age:S1 years, Occ: Agriculture' Caste: Are Patel, R/o.Godesera Village.

6. Mala bhoja [Died], S/o Bhoja, Caste: Mala' Age:71 years' R/o Godesera by LR of C-10 /

7. Burla bhoomanna, S/o.Bhoomanna, Age:55 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Godesera Village. B. Bhoja, S/o.Bhoja, Age:69 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Godesera Village.

9. Sundaragiri Narsa Goud, S/o.Saya goud, Age:4'1 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business Rio.Pipri, Lokeshwaram R.M. Now R/o.Beltaroda [V], Tanoor R.M.

10. Mala Bhojanna. S/o.Mala Bhoja, Age:41 years, Occ: Agricultrue R/o.Godeswra [V], Lokeshwaram R.M. I 1 . Yellaiah S/o Late Gaini Chinna Yellaiah, Age:52 years, Occ. Govt. Teacher, R/o Godesera Village, Adilabad District.

12. Rapathi Surelli Posani, Wo Late Mysanna, Age:45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Godesera Village, Adilabad District. ... Respondents/Cla ima nts Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 01-03-20'12 passed in O.P.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nirmal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the appellant and of Sri V. Manohar Rao, Counsel for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree of the reference Court, dated 01-03-2012 passed in O.P.No.05 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 be and hereby are entitled to additional market value @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification till the date of award and with regard to the interest; 2, That the claimants be and hereby are entitled to the interest on the enhanced compensation including solatium from the date of dispossession @ go/o per annum from the first one year and thereafter @ 1\o/o hll the date of realization;

3. That the remaining award so far as the compensation awarded by the reference Court shall stand confirmed; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA.RAO TRAR JOINT R SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Nirmal 2. fwo CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 DECREE LAAS.No.488 of 2013 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL 0 0 9X-