The High Court · 2025

Judgment

I HON'BLE) SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.22 of 2OL6 JUDGMENT:

(per Ilon'ble Smt. Justice Tinunata Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the tand Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the ActJ is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 3O.O7.2O 15 passed in L.A.O.P.No.453 of 2OO7 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (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 the land admeasuring

53.33 Sq.Yarcls in which a house bearing No.8-1-1O (old) and H.No.8-1-11 (new), Bodhan Road, Nizamabad was acquired for the purpose of widening the road. Draft notification was published in the Gazette on 16.12.2005. Possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 09.08.1998 by invoking urgency clause under Sectior- 17 of the Act. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has Iixed the value of the land @ Rs.3,500/- 1:cr square yard Aggrieved by the said award, the I 2 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No.22 2016 claimants have filed a petition for reference and the sarne was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad.

4. The Reference Court has framed the 'following point for consideration: "Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation and for consequential benefits thereon under the Act and if so, at what rate?

5. Before the Reference Court, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A24 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.Bl was marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount to Rs.9,602/- per square yard and other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Ofhcer), Nizamabad, has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard. Learned Government Pleader has submitted on behalf of the appellant that the reference Court has committed serious error in enhancing the market value on the basis of Ex.A1O which is a sale transaction reflecting a double storied building consisting of three shops and a residential portion and that it is comparabie to the land that was acquired. He further /( 3 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAs No.22 2016 contended that the reference Court ought not to have fixed the additional market value @ 72o/o frort the date of taking possession till the date o1'award i.e. on 23.O2.2OO7. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the reference Court by allowing this a ppeal.

8. Considering the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 3 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the claimants are not entitled to aclditional market value @ 72%o from the date of dispossession till date of award? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

4. To what relieP

9. POINT NO.1: a) The claimants before the reference Court filed Exs.Al to A24 to prove their case and the oral evidence ol PWs 1 to 3 was adduced. b) A perusal of the evidence on record reveals an undisputed fact that the claimants are the owners of house bearing Nos.8-1-10 (old), 8-1-11 (new), situated at Bodhan Road, Nizamabad. It is elicited through the evidence of PWl that Nehru Park, Gandhi 4 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.22 2016 Chowk which are the major centers for Nizamabad town are 1OO yards away from the building and that Bodhan bus band is situated at a distance of 50 yards from the building. It is further elicited through his evidence that urbanization of the area is spread up to 4 KM from the building and the building is situated at prominent center place of Nizamabad town. It is further elicited through him that Khojah Colony, Azam road, Devi Road are situated far away from Gandhi Chowk, wherein the transactions reveal the value of land @ Rs. 17,054/- per square yard as mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer. He relied upon the sale deeds under Exs.A7, A8, A10, Al2, Al4, A16, A18, A2O, A22 and A24 and deposed that the value of the structures and hxtures were also not valued properly and that their valuables got damaged while building was demolished. In his cross examination, it is further elicited that the acquired property is on the left side of the main road leading to Bodhan from Nizamabad and that Devi Road is a business centre, having commercial complexes on both sides of the road. He admitted that the sale deeds filed by him pertain to constructed buildings. c) PW2 is the owner of the building which is adjacent to the acquired building. It is elicited through him that he used to run radio repair shop in his building. He further stated that the I 5 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.22_2016 deceased claimant Nos. I and 2 used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per annum on tJ.e mulgies of the demolished building. d) PW3 is the Assistant City Planner in Municipal Corporation of Nizamabad. It is elicited through him that the acquired building was demolished after its acquisition and that the municipal commissioner, Nizamabad has deposited Rs.5.5 Lakhs with the l,and Acquisition Officer towards the value of the land acquired and the structures existing therein. e) RWl is the AO in the RDO's Oflice. It is elicited through him that the claimants were paid Rs.2,6S,3S6/- as compensation for tl-e land only and he is not aware about the remaining amount deposited by the municipality. f) The sale. transactions as reflected in the LAO award under Ex.B I show that he has referred to as many :rs 92 sale transactions pertaining to the years 2OO3, 2OO4 and 2O05 and a perusal of the said transactions reveal that the highest sale transaction is reflected at Sl.No.44 which happens to be a house property at Devi road for Rs. 17,054/- per square yard and it is elicited through the evidence of pWl that it is situated 50 yards away from the acquired building. While the reason for rejecting the highest sale transaction by the Land Acquisition officer is that tl.e 6 A(S.J & ETD,] LAAS No.22 2016 Devi Road is a commercial area and obviously the rates in such areas will be at higher side, therefore, he has discarded the same' It is elicited through the evidence of PWs I to 3 and also the sale deeds reflected under Exs.A7, A8, AiO, A72, Al4, A16, A18, A20, A22 and A24, ttre sale transactions elicited that the land acquired is very near to the Devi road ald the suggestion given to the PWl during cross examination also proves that the acquired land is abutting the main road and there were shops that were being run in the said premises. All these factors throw light upon the fact that the acquired d land is near Devi road ald also is suitable for usage of commercial purposes. Therefore, the value that is enhanced by the reference Court as Rs.9,6O2/- per square yard appears to be justified' Point No. 1 is answered accordinglY.

10. 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 @ l2o/o from the date of possession and that it is supposed to be granted from the date of notification' b) It is pertinent to re fer to Section 23(1-A) of t1.e Act and the same is extracted hereunder: 7 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.22 2016 "23.{1 A) ln addition to the market value of the iand, as above, the Court shall in every case award an anlount 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- SecLion (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possessioo ofthe land, whichever is earlier". c) Thus, a plain reading of Section 23(i-A) would infer that l2o/o of additiona-l 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 Speclol Tahsildar (IA), P.W.D. Schemes a. M.A.Jabbart , it was held that the possession having already been taken on i5.02.1965, i.e. before publication of the notification under Section 4(1) which was on 06.03.1980, the award of additional amoLrnt for tJle 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 Assf,t Comrnr., Gadag Sub-Ditision v. Mathapathi Basanto:nnaeuturoz that if possession is taken prior lo the notihcation, then the strict construction of Section 23(l-A) u'ould lead to unjust result, hardship to the owner ' 1tss51a<tc uz ' (tggs) e scc:ss 8 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.22_2016 and defeats legislative object. Therefore, in its view, the expression "whichever is earlief 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 notifrcation 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. Acqui.sition Olficefi 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(l) 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 availabie. 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 notilication till date of t (zOO2) t Supreme court cases 142 9 AKS,] & ETD,J LAAS No.22 2016 award. By holding so, the Apex Court has held rhat the decision lald down in M.A.Jabbar (supra 1l is the correct law, while the decision rendered in Mathapo;thi Basa uanneuru)d.'s case (supra 2) 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 notilication 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. d 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 notification but not from the date of possession. Therefore, the order of t}le reference Court with regard to awarding additional market value has to be modilied. point No.2 is answered, accordingly. 1I . POINT NO.3: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point Nos.l & 2, the order and decree dated 3O.O7.2015 passed in L.A.O.p.No.4S3 of 2OO7 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad need to be modified with regard to the additional market value. The Reference Court has awarded l2o/o of additional market value from the date of possesiion till the date of award, which is not tenable in the eye of 1au,. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled \ \ 10 Arc,J & ETD,J I-AAS No.22-2016 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 titl the date of award. IL. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree dated 30'07'2015 passed in L'A'O'P'No'453 of 2OO7 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad' to the extent of additional market value i'e' the claimants are entitled to additional market value @ l2oh pet annum under Section 23(1- A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the date of The remaining order as to the notification till the date of award' compensation awarded bY the reference Court shall stand confirmed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand ciosed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REG SECTION OFFICER I To

1. The Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. ( with records) 2. Two CC to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 3. Two CD Copies Kul/gh / HIGH COURT DATED:21103t2O25 I)lr('REI LAAS.No.22 of 2O1(i PARTI,Y ALI,OWIN(i I'HE I,AAS WITHOUT COSTS / /,4 5 / J s }UN NLl * :2L\ 2a :! + IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWQ THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ANI) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.NO:22OF 2016 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nizamabad. ...APPELLANT/ Referencer AND '1. Smt. Baliques Banu, Wo. Syed Mohd A/uneer (Died per LR R3) R/o. H.No. 9- 1-35, Quilla Road, Nizamabad. 2 Smt. Ameena Banu, Wo. Syed Abdu Khadir (Died per LR R3) R/o. H.No. 9-1- 35, Quilla Road, Nizamabad.

3. Syed Azhar Hussain, Wo. Syed Mohd Muneer R/o. H.No. 9-1-35, QLrilla Road. Nizamabad. .. Claimants/ RESPONDENTS Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A.Act of 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-07 -2015 in O.P.No. 453 o{ 2OO7 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of G.P. for appeals on behalf of the Appellant and none appeared for respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows: l. That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. That the order and decree dated 30-07-2015 passed in L.A.O.P.No. 453 of 2007 by the learned lAdditional District Judge at Nizamabad be and hereby is modified.

3. That the extent of additional market value i.p: 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. i,i \

4. That the remaining order as to the compensation awarded.by th 5. That there :;hall be no order as to costs in this appeal. reference Court shall stand confirmed To ll-la.oetue) |/

1. The Additional District Judge, Nizamabad 2. fwo C.D.Copies SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR J ltDN opg\&--q k HIGH COURT DATED:211O312025 l DECRFE JUDGMENT LAAS.No.22 of 2O1e PARTLY ALI,OWIN(i 1I{E LNAS WITI{OT,IT COS'fS 4,'S 4 /b