Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 667 (AP)

Union of India v. B. Mettu Rama Reddy (died) per

2013-08-19

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S.V.BHATT

body2013
Judgment L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed in EP No.140 of 2003 in OP No.121 of 1987 by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 2. The land of respondents 1 to 4 admeasuring about Acs.12.23 guntas in Survey No.93/2 of Tokatta Village, Secunderabad Mandal is under occupation of the Defence Establishment since 1941. There are some disputes as to the nature of the occupation. It is alleged that the lease amount was paid upto the year 1956 and thereafter it was stopped. 3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was issued on 15.2.1973 for acquisition of Acs.8.19 cents of land and similar notification was published on 5.2.1976. After taking the other steps required under the Act, common award was passed on 23.9.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value @ Rs.7.52ps. per square yard. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them, the respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. 4. The reference was taken up as OP No.121 of 1987 by the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Through its order dated 21.12.1998, the trial Court enhanced the market value- at Rs.17/- per square yard and awarded 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation. Additional market value under Section 23(I-A) of the Act was awarded from 1.1.1966, that is the date from which the land was taken possession, till the date of award. Interest provided for under Section 28 of the Act was ordered from 1.1.1966 onwards. 5. CCCA No.7 of 2002 was filed by the Land Acquisition Officer that is the 10th respondent herein, challenging the enhancement and grant of certain benefits. The respondents/claimants filed cross objections claiming further enhancement of compensation. 6. A Division Bench of this Court passed judgment in the appeal and cross-objections on 27.6.2003 further enhancing the compensation at Rs. 19/- per square yard. It was directed that the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is payable not from 1.1.1966, but from the date of notification. It was also directed that the claimants shall be entitled to other statutory benefits. The judgment rendered by this Court in the appeal became final. 7. The respondents filed EP No.140 of 2003 in OP No.121 of 1987 for realizing the balance of compensation. It was also directed that the claimants shall be entitled to other statutory benefits. The judgment rendered by this Court in the appeal became final. 7. The respondents filed EP No.140 of 2003 in OP No.121 of 1987 for realizing the balance of compensation. They filed a calculation memo along with E.P. indicating that a sum of Rs.1,45,42,746/- is to be paid by the petitioner. Since the E.P. was pending for quite sometime, a second calculation memo calculating the benefits upto 23.9.1986 was filed indicating the amount of Rs.1,92,27,021/-. The appellant, however, filed a memo dated 2.11.2004 stating that they are liable to pay only Rs.24,90,726/-. 8. In view of the vast difference between the figures furnished by the parties, the executing Court heard the matter in detail. The differences between the parties are mostly about the obligation to pay interest on solatium on additional market value the date from which the additional market value is to be calculated. The executing Court rejected the objections raised' by the petitioner. However, since there is difference between the amounts claimed by the respondents in their respective memos, a direction was issued to submit a fresh calculation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this civil revision petition. 9. Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents have advanced extensive arguments and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court that was bearing on the subject. 10. Two separate notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Act to acquire Acs.12.23 guntas owned by the respondents. In respect of Acs.8.19 guntas, it was issued on 15.2.1973 and as regards the balance of the land, it was issued on 5.2.1976. Common award was passed on 23.9.1986. It has already been mentioned that while the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs.7.52/-per square yard, the trial Court enhanced it to Rs.17/- per square yard and this Court further enhanced to Rs.19/- per square yard. Obviously, on account of uncertainty prevailing at that time about the payment of interest on solatium and additional market value, the Land Acquisition Officer did not grant the same and it was only in the reference and the appeal preferred before this Court that the said benefit was extended. 11. Obviously, on account of uncertainty prevailing at that time about the payment of interest on solatium and additional market value, the Land Acquisition Officer did not grant the same and it was only in the reference and the appeal preferred before this Court that the said benefit was extended. 11. The Land Acquisition Act itself, particularly Sections 23(1-A), 28 and 34 stipulate the time from which the benefits under those provisions are to be extended. The date and manner of taking of possession of the land assumes significance. In the instant case, the petitioner had the benefit of the possession of the land of the respondents without payment of any rent from 1.1.1966 onwards. The trial Court took that date into account and extended the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Act from that date. However, if one goes by the language of the said provisions, it becomes evident that the starting point can be only the date of notification. 12. While making amendment to the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1982, the Parliament took note of the fact that undue delay was taking place in passing the awards after the notifications are published and the land owners put to serious hardship. To mitigate the same, the Act was amended providing for payment of additional compensation. 13. It may be true that 1.1.1966 cannot be treated as the date of taking possession under the Act. However, the respondents cannot be denied the benefit of the additional market value on the ground that the possession was taken before the date of notification itself. The Parliament did not contemplate a situation where the possession can be taken even before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. From the point of view of the Land Acquisition Act, the possession from the respondents can be said to have been taken under Section 16 only when the award is passed and it is thereafter that the land would vest in the Government. The only other contingency under which the land can vest in the Government is under Section 17 of the Act when urgency clause invoked. That did not happen in this case. The inescapable conclusion is that the additional compensation is payable from the date of respective notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act, till the date of the award. 14. The only other contingency under which the land can vest in the Government is under Section 17 of the Act when urgency clause invoked. That did not happen in this case. The inescapable conclusion is that the additional compensation is payable from the date of respective notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act, till the date of the award. 14. In CCCA No.7 of 2002, this Court, while setting aside the direction issued by the trial Court that the additional compensation is payable from 1.1.1966, directed that the starting point shall be the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The date upto which it must be calculated was left open. The land owners cannot, on one hand, be denied the rent for the land from 1966 to 1972 and on the other hand, be deprived of the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Act. 15. The executing Court took the view that the interest is payable on solatium and additional market value and the same is awarded as per the judgment of the apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC) = (2001) 7 SCC 211 . The appellant relied on by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2007 (4) ALD 105 (SC) = (2006) 8 SCC 457. We are of the considered view that the ratio laid down therein does not apply to the peculiar facts of the present case. 16. Since the matter was pending for the past four decades, we directed the parties to file their respective calculation sheets before this Court, so that the matter can be given at quietus at this stage. Initially, the respondents/land owners filed a memo stating that they are entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.1,62,08, 160/-. We pointed out certain defects therein, in the context of the calculation. Taking the same into account, a revised memo was filed indicating an amount of Rs.1,23,43,435/- as on 2.8.2013. Extensive arguments have been made, in relation thereto. We have also taken the assistance of the learned Special Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to know whether the method of calculation adopted by the respondents is correct. After thoroughly examining the matter, we found that the figure furnished by the petitioner and the respondents is correct. 17. Almost two generations of the land owners have been fighting the litigation. We have also taken the assistance of the learned Special Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to know whether the method of calculation adopted by the respondents is correct. After thoroughly examining the matter, we found that the figure furnished by the petitioner and the respondents is correct. 17. Almost two generations of the land owners have been fighting the litigation. It is represented that the entire land acquired from the respondents is kept fallow and that in the neighbouring locality the land of similar nature is being sold at 2 to 3 crores of rupees per acre. Even if Ac.1.00 of the acquired land is left to them, it would fetch more than what is claimed towards balance of compensation. By now, they have been paid only about Rs.50.00 lakhs for the entire Acs.12.23 guntas of land. The matter cannot brook any further delay. 18. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of. The petitioner herein shall pay a sum of Rs.1,23,43,435/- (Rupees one crore twenty three lakhs forty three thousand four hundred and thirty five only) to the respondents within a period of 10 (Ten) weeks from today. In case the amount is not paid within that time, the request of the respondents to set aside the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Ac.1.00 of unused land shall be considered, if an appropriate application for that purpose is filed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions shall stand disposed of.