1. Landowners sought interest and damages for prolonged unauthorized dispossession by municipal authorities prior to formal acquisition proceedings under the land acquisition statutory framework. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 607
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, C.J., VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J.
Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Beside MGM Hospital, Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner - Appellant
Versus
Gonthi Gopal Reddy @ Gonthi Gopi & others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.778 of 2026
Decided On : 15-09-2026
Important Points
A court cannot grant interest from a disputed date of dispossession in a review application by relying on a precedent where facts were admitted; disputed questions of fact must be decided based on evidence from both parties.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation and Interest
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 64 - Land Acquisition - Payment of interest and damages for use and occupation - Claim for interest from the date of dispossession until the date of preliminary notification - When the date of dispossession is a disputed question of fact, it cannot be decided in a review application by mere comparison with a precedent where facts were admitted - The court must record a specific finding on the date of dispossession based on material evidence from both parties before directing payment of interest for a prolonged period. (Paras 19, 20, 21)
(B) Civil Procedure - Review - Scope and ambit - Power of review is limited and can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or upon discovery of new and important evidence - A review application cannot be used as an appeal to seek a fresh decision on merits or to decide disputed questions of fact without a proper record. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
A landowner claimed that land was taken for a road project in 1986. Following various litigations, a notification was issued under the Act, 2013, and an award was passed. The landowner sought interest and damages from the date of dispossession in 1986 until the date of the 2013 Act notification. A single judge, in a review application, directed the payment of 15% interest per annum from 1986, relying on a precedent where the date of possession was admitted.
Findings of Court:
The court found that unlike the cited precedent, the date of dispossession in the current case was disputed by the municipal authority. The order passed in the review application was cryptic and failed to record any specific finding on the date of dispossession. Therefore, the direction to pay interest for nearly thirty-seven years based on a disputed fact was unsustainable.
Issues: (i) Whether the order allowing the review and granting interest from the date of dispossession is sustainable? (ii) The extent to which the matter should be reconsidered by the writ court.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for additional interest or damages from the date of dispossession depends entirely on the established date of such dispossession. If that date is disputed, it cannot be decided summarily in a review application by applying a legal principle from a case with admitted facts. The court must examine the material placed by both parties and record a specific finding on the disputed question of fact.
Result: The order dated 13.11.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the writ court to decide the claim for interest and the date of dispossession afresh.
(B) Civil Procedure - Review - Scope and ambit - Power of review is limited and can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or upon discovery of new and important evidence - A review application cannot be used as an appeal to seek a fresh decision on merits or to decide disputed questions of fact without a proper record. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
A landowner claimed that land was taken for a road project in 1986. Following various litigations, a notification was issued under the Act, 2013, and an award was passed. The landowner sought interest and damages from the date of dispossession in 1986 until the date of the 2013 Act notification. A single judge, in a review application, directed the payment of 15% interest per annum from 1986, relying on a precedent where the date of possession was admitted.
Findings of Court:
The court found that unlike the cited precedent, the date of dispossession in the current case was disputed by the municipal authority. The order passed in the review application was cryptic and failed to record any specific finding on the date of dispossession. Therefore, the direction to pay interest for nearly thirty-seven years based on a disputed fact was unsustainable.
Issues: (i) Whether the order allowing the review and granting interest from the date of dispossession is sustainable? (ii) The extent to which the matter should be reconsidered by the writ court.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for additional interest or damages from the date of dispossession depends entirely on the established date of such dispossession. If that date is disputed, it cannot be decided summarily in a review application by applying a legal principle from a case with admitted facts. The court must examine the material placed by both parties and record a specific finding on the disputed question of fact.
Result: The order dated 13.11.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the writ court to decide the claim for interest and the date of dispossession afresh.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Parties disputed the legality of granting additional interest for long-term dispossession without factual determinations on the exact date of taking possession and authority to award damages. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. The court found that claims for interest on damages depend on established dates of dispossession, which require factual determination rather than blind application of previous rulings on admitted facts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. A court cannot grant interest as damages for dispossession without a specific factual finding regarding the date of possession, especially when such facts are disputed by parties. (Para 21 )
5. The reviewing order was set aside and the matter remitted to the initial court for a factual determination of the dispossession date and resultant interest claims. (Para 24 )
6. Can a reviewing court award interest based solely on precedents without verifying disputed underlying facts?
No, a court must make specific factual findings on disputed issues, such as the actual date of dispossession, before applying legal precedents regarding interest entitlement for damages. (Para 20 , 21 )
7. What is the proper procedure when a previous order does not address a specific claim for interest?
The court should address the claim by deliberating on the material facts and legal entitlement rather than treating the matter as a forum for appeal or automatically applying generic orders without factual assessment. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. Does a statutory reference for market value enhancement preclude a claim for interest on pre-notification dispossession damages?
A statutory reference regarding compensation enhancement under land acquisition laws does not automatically preclude a court from examining supplemental claims for interest on damages for illegal dispossession during the interim period. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
This writ appeal is filed by the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, which was respondent No.2 in the writ petition. The said appellant challenges the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned single Judge in Review I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.25722 of 2024. By the said order, the learned single Judge allowed the review application, modified the earlier order dated 19.09.2024 passed in the writ petition, and directed the respondents to pay interest and additional interest on the award amount from 18.11.1986.
2. Heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant corporation; Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1; and Mr. E. Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondent No.1 is the writ petitioner and the review petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the State of Telangana, the District Collector, Warangal and the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, who were respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the writ petition. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in this writ appeal.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The facts, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are briefly as follows. Respondent No.1 claims to be the owner of land admeasuring 1000 square yards with house bearing No.16-7-169/1 (old) and 16-7-147 (new) in Sy.No.15/2, Girmajipet, Warangal. The area was initially within the limits of the Warangal Municipality, which was upgraded as a Municipal Corporation with effect from 18.08.1994 and as the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation with effect from 28.01.2015. According to respondent No.1, the land was taken for the formation of an 80 feet Master Plan Road, and possession was taken on 18.11.1986. Thereafter, a notice dated 16.01.1987 was issued to him stating that the land was proposed to be acquired, and a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 19.01.1987.
4. Respondent No.1 states that several rounds of litigation followed. W.P.No.6990 of 1989 was disposed of on 08.03.1990, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders after considering the documents of title, and leaving it open to the authorities either to withdraw from the acquisition, if the land was found to be Government land, or to issue a fresh notification, if the land was found to belong to him. In W.P.No.12023 of 1992, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed on 21.09.2000. In his report dated 27.10.2000, the Advocate Commissioner stated that, except 97.8 square yards, the entire extent of 1000 square yards claimed by respondent No.1 had been utilised by the municipal authorities. That writ petition was disposed of on 22.04.2002, directing the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to pass appropriate orders on allotment of an alternative plot, for which respondent No.1 had given his consent on 22.03.2002. C.C.No.713 of 2002 filed in that writ petition was closed on 04.03.2003, recording that an amount of Rs.30 lakhs had been deposited before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal.
5. Respondent No.1 then filed W.P.No.8689 of 2006, challenging G.O.Rt.No.1445 dated 20.10.2005 and the consequential intimation dated 07.12.2005. That writ petition was allowed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The respondents were directed to initiate proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act, 2013’) and to pay compensation as per the market value on the date of the fresh notification. Respondent No.1 was also given liberty to file a suit for compensation for use and occupation of his land from 1995. The appellant Corporation filed W.A.No.1119 of 2018 against that order. On 08.07.2022, the Division Bench recor
