IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
L.A.A.S. Nos.388 and 716 of 2010
Between: LAAS.No.388 of 2010
The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilbabad District.
And M.A.Ahad, S/o.M.A.Samad R/o.Nirmal, Adilabad District.
… Appellant/Referring Officer … Respondent/Claimant
LAAS.No.716 of 2010
M.A.Ahad, S/o.M.A.Samad R/o.Nirmal, Adilabad District.
… Appellant/Referring Officer And The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilbabad District.
… Respondent/Claimant THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
L.A.A.S. Nos.388 and 716 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri GC, J)
These appeals, LAAS. Nos.388 and 716 of 2010, have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer/Referring Officer and the claimant, respectively, against the order dated 31.08.1999 passed in O.P. No.2 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.
Since both the appeals arose out of the same order, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
The facts are not in dispute that an extent of 426 square yards of land of the claimant was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of laying road from old bus stand to new bus stand, Nirmal.
Brief facts of the case are that the patta land of the claimant situated at Nirmal village in Survey No.1675 (Old) were taken over by the Commissioner, Municipality, Nirmal for formation of Municipal road at Nirmal connecting to Old bus stand with New bus stand in the year 1976 and the road has also been formed but the compensation was not paid. Therefore, the father of the claimant filed W.P. No.15077 of 1989 that was allowed of by this Court vide its order dated 04.12.1995 with the directions to the Municipality, Nirmal to initiate and complete the Land Acquisition Proceedings and to pay the compensation to the claimant within four months, from the date of the order. Thereafter, the Government and the Municipality filed W.A. No.1340 of 1996 against the writ order and the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, C.C. No.998 of 1996 was also filed wherein this Court on 11.09.1997 and 17.11.1997 granted two months time for complying with the orders of this Court. Accordingly, the Commissioner Municipality, Nirmal vide letter No.G1/3122/89, dated 01.10.1997 while depositing an amount of Rs.3,26,000/- with the Land Acquisition Officer towards the 80% probable land value and filed requisition for acquisition of land.
The Land Acquisition Officer, subsequent to publication of required 4(1) notification under the Act in the year 1997, passed award fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard and deposited the amount of Rs.3,26,800/- for the acquired land. Having not satisfied with the said award, the claimant sought to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal, who passed the impugned order.
Before the reference Court, during the course of enquiry, for the Government, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A-1 was got marked and for the claimant, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-14 were got marked and Exs.C-1 to C-3 were marked by the Court.
To determine the lis between the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant needs any enhancement, and if so, what would be just and reasonable compensation?
2. To what relief?
After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the reference Court had fixed the compensation of Rs.2,000/- per square yard for 426 square yards of land with 30% solatium, 12% additional market value and interest on the aggregate enhanced compensation . Assailing the same, these appeals have been filed by respective parties.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.340/-
per square yard to Rs.2,000/- per square yard without any basis. As per G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 19.09.1997, the Government fixed the award funds at the rate of Rs.765/- per square yard and deposited 80% of the amount. Even in the sale deeds, Exs.B-4 to B-6, dated 16.12.1997, 28.11.1997 and 16.01.1996, value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs.1800/-, Rs.1500/- and Rs.1200/-. Without considering the said documents, the reference Court exorbitantly fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per square yard, without any basis and more than the prevailing market value. Further, the reference Court has awarded the interest from the date of possession i.e. 07.01.1976 instead of date of notification i.e. 18.12.1997, which is against the well settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the reference Court committed an error in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that this particular case has got long history and the authorities concerned, without initiating acquisition proceedings and without following due process of law, have taken possession of the subject land in the year 1976. After many representations from the claimant, on 07.01.1976 the Municipality, Nirmal issued a letter stating that they intend to acquire the said land for public purpose laying road connecting the existing old bus stand to National Highway and to new bus stand within town limits of city Municipality Nirmal and further stated that the compensation of the land will be paid in due course. Even after many years, as the compensation has not been paid to the claimant, he filed W.P. No.15077 of 1989 that was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 04.12.1995 wherein directed the respondents therein to initiate Land Acquisition Proceedings and pay the compensation within four months, from the date of receipt of the order. At this juncture, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the said order wherein it is stated that if the compensation has not been paid within the time stipulated by this Court, the claimant is entitled to penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum over and above the statutory benefits. Since the compensation has not been paid within the time stipulated by the Court, the claimant is entitled to 12% interest. Against the said order, the Government and Municipality also filed W.A. No.1340 of 1996 and that was dismissed. Since the order passed in the writ petition had attained finality and there was no compliance, the claimant filed C.C. No.998 of 1996. Thereafter, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government randomly issued G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 15.09.1997 fixing the value of the land at the rate of Rs.765/- per square yard. Having not satisfied with the same, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act and the reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per square yard.
It is also submitted that certain properties belongs to the Government in the same survey number was put to auction and for that land the market value was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per square yard, at the relevant point of time. In the instant case, the reference Court did not take into consideration Ex.B-9. If the reference Court ought to have taken into consideration Ex.B-9, it ought to have fixed the land value at least Rs.2,500/-, if not Rs.3000/-. In this regard, he sought to place reliance in the case of THAKUR KULDEEP SINGH (D)
[1]
Thr. L.R. AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS and submitted that other material if available, Government rates can also be considered as corroborative evidence. Therefore, he sought to enhance the market value at least Rs.2500/- per square yard.
He further submitted that the reference Court had rightly granted interest from the date of taking possession and not from the notification. In support of this contention he placed reliance in the case of TAHERA KHOTOON AND OTHERS v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS
[2]
, and MADISHETTI BALARAMUL (DEAD) BY LRS. V. LAND ACQUISITION
[3]
OFFICER and submitted that no interference of this is required.
Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the claimant and perused the material on record.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the reference Court committed any error in passing the impugned order?
Initially, though there was dispute with regard to extent of acquired land, eventually, it is restricted for 426 square yards. In the instant case, it is to be noticed that the possession of the subject land was taken on 07.01.1976 without initiating acquisition proceedings and after a lapse of about two decades acquisition proceedings were initiated and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard on the strength of 4 to 5 sale transactions during the period of preceding three years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. At this juncture, it is also to be noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer overlooked the G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 19.09.1997 wherein the Government fixed the market value for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.765/- per square yard and the Land Acquisition Officer simply awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.340/- per square yard.
In the present case, the claimant filed Exs.B-4 to B-6, sale deeds of the nearby acquired land which are within the acquisition period of the acquired land and also Ex.B-9 the valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Nirmal in respect of the market value certificate of the adjacent lands and Ex.B-10 certified copy of the Government land auction notice wherein upset price was fixed ranging from Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per square yard. In view of the above, the reference Court had rightly found fault with the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced the compensation from Rs.340/- to Rs.2000/-. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the reference Court enhanced the compensation exorbitantly without any basis is not sustainable.
Coming to the aspect of interest, the learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance in the case of 2 supra, wherein the Apex Court held at para 15 to 17 as under:
“15. In the instant case, it is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by either side that the property in dispute was in possession of the Warangal Municipal Committee. In fact the said Municipal Committee had developed the aforesaid land into a park. Since there was a dispute among the owners of the land with the Municipal Committee, the Municipal Committee had sought the assistance of the State Government to acquire the property and to had over the same to the municipal Committee for its use and development.
16. It is also not in dispute that the Municipal Committee was in possession of the aforesaid property right from 1.1.1938 till the Notification was issued by the State Government on 10.1.1996. Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) by LRs’s case(supra), we direct the State Government to pay rents/damages at the rate of 15% on the compensation awarded from the date the land owners were dispossessed, namely, from 1.1.1938 till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification, i.e. 10.1.1996. The calculations shall be made by the State Government as expeditiously as possible and disburse the aforesaid amount to the appellants as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
17. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”
In the said judgment, the Apex Court categorically directed the State Government therein to pay rents/damages at the rate of 15% on the compensation awarded from the date the land owners were dispossessed till the date of issuance of the preliminary notification.
The learned counsel for the claimant also placed reliance in the case of 3rd supra wherein the Apex Court held at relevant paras 9, 15 and 20, which reads as under:
“9. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether Section 25 of the Act will have any application in the fact of the present case.
Two notifications were issued separately. The second notification was issued as the first notification did not survive. Valuation of the market rate for the acquired land, thus, was required to be determined on the basis of the Notification dated 23-12-1991. The earlier notification lost its force. If the notification issued on 16-3-1979 is taken into consideration for all purposes, the subsequent award awarding market value of the land @ Rs 65 per square yard cannot be sustained. As the said market value has been determined having regard to the notification issued on 23-12- 1991, possession taken over by the respondent in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land, pursuant to the said notification dated 16-3-1979 was in the eye of the law, therefore, illegal. The High Court evidently directed grant of additional market value @ 12% per annum on the enhanced market value from the date of the publication of the notification dated 23-12-1991 as also interest thereupon from the said date instead and in place of 18-5-1979. We generally agree therewith.
15. The Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land on the basis of a notification which did not survive. The respondent could not have continued to hold possession of land despite abatement of the proceeding under the 1984 Act. It was directed to be decided by the high Court upon a reference made by the Collector in terms of Section 30 of the Act. The State therefore, itself realized that its stand in regard to the ownership of 3 acres and 5 guntas of land was not correct. It, therefore, had to issue another notification having regard to the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Whereas the High Court may be correct in interpreting the question of law in view of the decision of this Court, but the same would not mean that the appellants would not get anything for being remaining out of possession from 1979 to 1991.
20. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, although the proper course for us would have to remand the matter back to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the appellants would be entitled for being remained out of possession since 1979, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if this appeal is disposed of with a direction that additional interest @ 15% per annum on the amount awarded in terms of award dated 2-1-1999 for the period 16-3-1979 till 22-12- 1991, should be granted, which, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice.”
In view of the referred judgments, we are of the view that the reference Court did not commit any error in granting interest at the rate of 15% per annum after the first one year of dispossession till payment is made.
Further, it is needless for us to say that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.15077 of 1989 dated 04.12.1995 the claimant is entitled to 12% penal interest on the compensation over and above the statutory benefits, which had already granted by the reference Court.
In view of the above, LAAS. No.388 of 2010 filed by the State, Land Acquisition Officer, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Coming to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimant to the effect that the claimant is entitled to more compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- if not, at least Rs.2500/- he placed reliance on Ex.B-9 and B-10, valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Nirmal in respect of the market value certificate of the adjacent lands and certified copy of the Government land auction notice wherein upset price was fixed ranging from Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per square yard.
In this regard, we are of the view that the reference Court, taking into consideration Exs.B-1 to B-14 particularly, Exs.B-4 to B-6 and B-9 and B-10, enhanced the compensation from Rs.340/- to Rs.2000/-
per square yard. Therefore, we do not see any reason to enhance the same and therefore, LAAS. No.716 of 2010 filed by the claimant is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals i.e. LAAS. No.388 of 2010 and LAAS. No.716 of 2010 are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Date: 12.11.2014 LSK
[1] 2010 (3) ALD 108 (SC)
[2] 2014(2) ALD 1 (SC)
[3] (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 650