SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 817

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, JJ.
The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer - Appellants 
Versus 
Gaini Chinna Yellaiah, S/o.Venkaiah - Respondent 
L.A.A.S.No.488 OF 2013
Decided on : 06-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Sri V.Manohar Rao

Compensation for land acquisition must be calculated based on statutory provisions, with additional market value awarded from notification date, and interest from dispossession date.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 54, 23(1-A) - Appeal against enhancement of compensation for land acquisition - Reference Court awarded Rs.16,000/- per acre, asserting similarity to previous awards - The appellate court revises the award, concluding additional market value is due from notification date, not possession date - Interest awarded from date of dispossession @ 9% for one year, thereafter 15% till realization. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14)

(B) In matters of compensation for land acquisition, reference courts have the authority to enhance awards based on market value comparisons with adjacent lands - Any modifications in interest calculation must align with statutory guidelines. (Paras 10, 12)

JUDGMENT :

Tirumala Devi Eada, J.

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 01.03.2012 passed in O.P.No.05 of 2006 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 lands of the claimants in Godesera Village, Lokeshwaram Mandal have been acquired, for the purpose of submergence under Sriramsagar Project. A draft notification and draft declaration proposals have been published in the Gazette on 05.11.2002 and 06.11.2002 respectively. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted Rs.3,500/- per acre including statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same 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:

“1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants needs any enhancement, if so, what would be just and reasonable compensation?

2. To what relief?”

5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. On the other hand, the respondents got examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,500/- per acre to Rs.16,000/- per acre and also granted additional market value @12% 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 by the said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal.

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 and 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.16,000/- 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. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly considered Ex.A1 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.

10. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the claimants are not entitled to additional market value @12% from the date of dispossession till date of realization?

3. Whether the claimants are not entitled to the interest from the date of dispossession till date of realization?

4. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

5. To what relief?

11. POINT NOs.1 AND 2:

a) The record discloses that on 17.03.1973, the possession of agricultural lands of the claimants in Godesera village of Lokeshwaram Mandal was acquired by the irrigation authorities in pursuance to a requisition made by Deputy Executive Engineer,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top