ORDER : Leave granted 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of A.P. at Hyderabad in AS Nos. 1799 of 2000 and 1155 of 2001, dated 8.10.2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quantified the compensation payable to the land owners in a sum of Rs. 400 Sq. yards with other statutory benefits. The facts in nutshell are: The Municipal Committee, Warangal had taken possession of a land situate in old Waddepalli Village to an extent of 3733 Sq. yards in Survey No. 37 on 1.1.1938. The Municipal Committee had developed the said land into a park which was known as "Nehru Park". To avoid further dispute, the Municipal Committee had requested the State Government to acquire the aforesaid land by initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Pursuant to the request so made by the Municipal Committee, a preliminary Notification was issued by the State Government, dated 14.1.1996. After considering the objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act, the State Government had issued final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. 3. After completion of the proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "LAO") had quantified the compensation payable to the land owners in a sum of Rs. 250 per Sq. yards with other statutory benefits. 4. Aggrieved by the award so made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owner/(s) had requested the LAO to make a reference to the civil Court as provided under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court by its order dated 28.1.2000 had quantified the compensation payable to the lands acquired in a sum of Rs. 400/- per Sq. yard after coming to the conclusion that average value of the land is Rs. 600/- per Sq. yard on the basis of the sale deeds, Exs. A5 and A6 even though the land owner/(s) proved the market value according to sale deeds to be Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per Sq. yard. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the reference Court, an appeal was preferred before the High Court. 600/- per Sq. yard on the basis of the sale deeds, Exs. A5 and A6 even though the land owner/(s) proved the market value according to sale deeds to be Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per Sq. yard. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the reference Court, an appeal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and after considering the evidence that was led by the parties and also considering the comparable sales statistics has confirmed the market value in a sum of Rs. 400/- per Sq. yard. Before the High Court, the land owner/(s) were not only asking for enhancement of compensation payable to the lands acquired but also for rent/damages for the lands from the date they were dispossessed till the date of the notification, i.e., from 1.1.1938 till 10.1.1996. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has fixed the compensation at Rs. 400/- per Sq. yard as noticed by us earlier and has granted 9% interest from the date of notification. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the land owner/(s) are before us in these appeals. 7. Shri P. Viswanath Shetty, learned Senior Counsel strenuously contends before us that the High Court was not justified in granting the compensation of Rs. 400/- per Sq. yard and according to him the land is situated in a developed area and has a great potential and, therefore, the High Court ought to have enhanced the compensation amount ordered by the reference Court. Further, learned Counsel would submit that the Appellants are entitled for rents/damages from the date they were dispossessed, namely, 1.1.1938 till the date of Notification, namely, 10.1.1996 and since that has not been properly calculated by the High Court, the order passed by the High Court requires to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 8. We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court has not committed any error whatsoever while quantifying the compensation payable to the land loser/(s) in a sum of Rs. 400/- per Sq. yard with all other statutory benefits. 9. 8. We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court has not committed any error whatsoever while quantifying the compensation payable to the land loser/(s) in a sum of Rs. 400/- per Sq. yard with all other statutory benefits. 9. Now what remains to be considered and decided by us is whether the Appellants are entitled for rent or damages from the date they were dispossessed till the date of preliminary Notification. 10. In support of the assertion, Shri Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has brought to out notice the observations made rendered by this Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. v. DDA and Ors., 2004 (4) ALD 25 (SC) : (2004) 4 SCC 79 and also in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) by L.Rs. v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 650 . 11. In the first case, this Court after considering the submission that is canvassed by the land loser/(s) thought it fit to remand the matter to the LAO to determine the rent or damages for use of the property by the land owner/(s) are entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner/(s) for acquisition of the property. 12. In the latter decision of this Court instead of remanding the matter to the LAO thought it fit to award 15% interest to the land loser/(s) from the date they were dispossessed till the date of preliminary Notification. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the exercise that has been done by this Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) by L.Rs.'s case (supra), requires to be adopted. 14. 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 hand over the same to the Municipal Committee for its use and development. 15. 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 hand over the same to the Municipal Committee for its use and development. 15. 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 L.Rs.'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. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.