Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 872728 OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NOs. 170171 OF 2019)
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR. …..APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
ISMAIL BHAI AND OTHERS ..…RESPONDENT(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 872932 OF 2022
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NOs.562932 OF 2018
ISMAIL BHAI & OTHERS …..APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
(LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) ETC. ..…RESPONDENT(s)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 873334 OF 2022
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NOs. 2215152 OF 2018
FAKHRUDDIN ALI …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
(LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) & ANR. ..…RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2022.11.22
16:46:50 IST
Reason:
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1
Leave granted.
2. The present case is having history of repeated litigation by
land owners to get compensation of the land owned by them. The
land owners’ land admeasuring area of Ac 3.23 guntas in
Survey No. 268 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of
extension of the Nehru Zoological Park. The Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “L.A.
Act”) and final Notification under Section 6 were issued on
19.03.1981 and 09.04.1981 respectively. Despite taking
possession, award was not passed and no amount of
compensation was paid. The land owners had filed Writ Petition
No. 17119 of 1996 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which
was disposed vide order dated 22.04.1997 directing the
respondents (Revenue Department) to pass an award within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Only
thereafter award was passed in case No. 1/1844/89 on
07.06.1997 and a meagre compensation @ Rs. 6 per sq. yard was
awarded to the land owners.
3. The land owners submitted representation asking reference
under Section 18 of L.A Act, which was not responded, forcing
2
them to approach again the High Court. The land owners filed
Writ Petition No. 5676 of 2003 which was disposed of on
18.04.2003 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to take action
to make reference within six weeks. Even after direction by the
High Court, reference was not made, however the land owners
filed Contempt Case No. 1668 of 2004. After issuing notice in
contempt, reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer
to the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District
which was registered as O.P. No. 205 of 2005. The Reference
Court made the award on 03.09.2012 directing respondents to
pay compensation to the land owners @ Rs. 250 per sq. yard with
solatium and interest.
4. The enhancement, as directed by the Reference Court, was
questioned by the Revenue Department by filing appeals before
the High Court bearing LAAS Nos. 303 of 2013 and 330 of 2015.
The land owners had also filed an appeal bearing LAAS No. 353
of 2015 questioning the adequacy of compensation. The High
Court, during the course of hearing, by consent of the parties,
referred the appeals for Mediation vide order dated 01.02.2016.
The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:
“In the given circumstances, we are satisfied that if a
trained mediator works out, exhibiting the necessary
3
patience, it is more likely that the controversy can be
sorted out effectively and to the satisfaction of both
sides. In these given facts and circumstances, we
consider it appropriate to direct the Registry to refer
these appeals for Mediation and Conciliation Centre
attached to the High Court with a request to the
Deputy Director in charge thereof to refer the dispute
in these appeals to one of the trained mediators, if
possible, who has handled similar assignments
relating to the land acquisition matters in the past ”
During the mediation proceedings, the parties have entered
into Joint Memorandum of Compromise on 28.04.2016, in which
the Revenue Department agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.
350/ per sq. yard. Accordingly, the Mediator submitted its
report on 05.05.2016, inter alia stating that the proposal made
by the land owners of Rs. 500/ per sq. yard had not been
accepted on behalf of the Government, but agreed to fix Rs.
350 per sq. yard towards the compensation and determined
the total sum as Rs. 3,48,46,578/. The report of the Mediator
is also relevant, therefore reproduced as thus:
“As per the claim of the parties quoted @ Rs. 500 /
per Sq. Yard for total extent of 8,651.5 Sq. Yards
including 30% Solatium on market value under Section
23(2) and 12% p.a. Addl. Market Value u/s 23(1) from
the date of Notification 03.03.1981 to 07.06.1997 as
per Award.
4
The claim from the above after calculation of interest
the parties after deduction of the payment made in EP
No. 11 of 2013 deposited by the LAO the claim is Rs.
7,33,17,558/.
After making hectic efforts between the parties and
the matter is finalized on 28.04.2016 before me at
Mediation Centre proposed to fix the land value @ Rs.
350/ per Sq. Yard as per the proposal made by the
officers to deduct the 20% of the land value, the
amount comes to Rs. 3,48,46,578/ and the parties
convinced as full and final settlement subject
withdrawal of the cases pending before the Courts”
5. After submission of Mediation Report, Deputy Collector,
Government of Telangana addressed a letter bearing No.
1/4279/1997 dated 7.5.2016 to the Curator, Nehru Zoological
Park, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad with a request to pursue the
matter with the Government to sanction the fund at the earliest
to avoid any other future problem. The relevant extract of said
letter is reproduced as thus:
“During the course of discussions regarding
settlement of land value, the party in person
requested to fix the market value@ Rs. 500/ per Sq.
Yard. But after long discussions the Mediator has
proposed the land value @ Rs. 350 / per Sq. Yard.
Via Media and placed before this authority. Finally
by considering the prevailing market value of the
land agreed the proposal of Mediator and fixed the
land value @ Rs. 350/ per Sq. Yard. Accordingly a
5
Joint Memorandum of Compromise has been filed
before the Mediation Centre on 30.04.2016.
In compliance to the above the Mediator High Court
of, Judicature at Hyderabad has addressed a letter
dated. 05.05.2016 to this authority directing to make
arrangement to issue cheque in the name of the
parties in the LAAS No.353/2015 by name Mr. Ismail
Bhai S/o. (Late) Hassan Ali before the Mediator
centre on or before 20.05.2016 to settle the issue and
submit before the High Court.
In view of the above, kindly make it pursue the
matter with Government and to provide the fund at
the earliest to avoid any other future problems.”
6. On the basis of the mediation report, relying upon the Joint
Memorandum of Compromise executed by the parties, the
appeals filed by the Revenue Department as well as the land
owners were disposed of vide order dated 10.06.2016. The order
passed by the High Court is reproduced as thus:
“1. The dispute between the parties in the above
appeals was referred to the Mediation and
Arbitration Centre, by an order of this court dated
01.02.2016.
2. From the report of the Mediation and
Arbitration Centre attached to this Court, it
appears that the Mediation was successful. The
parties have entered into a Joint Memorandum of
Compromise before the Mediation and the copy of
the Joint Memorandum of Compromise entered
into on 28.04.2016 is filed before us.
3. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed of in
terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise
6
entered into by the parties before the Mediation
and Arbitration Centre. There shall be no order
as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, in these appeals, shall stand closed.”
7. Even on communication of the said order, which was
passed in presence of both the parties, it was not complied with
by making the payment of compensation. Therefore, a Writ
Petition bearing No. 34175 of 2016 was filed by the land owners
before the High Court seeking direction to the authorities to
make payment of agreed compensation of Rs. 3,48,46,578/ as
calculated in Joint Memorandum of Compromise. After service of
the notice of the said Writ Petition, the Revenue Department
instead of complying the order of the High Court, filed petitions
seeking recall of the order dated 10.06.2016 taking exception
that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who signed the Joint
Memorandum of Compromise, had not taken permission from
the superior officers. The High Court allowed the Recall Petitions
bearing LAASMP No. 59 of 2017 in L.A.A.S. No. 303 of 2013 and
LAASMP No. 60 of 2017 in L.A.A.S. No. 353 of 2015 and restored
LAAS Nos. 303/2013 and 353/2015.
8. After restoration, the appeal filed by the Revenue
Department was allowed by High Court vide order dated
24.11.2017 reducing the compensation @ Rs. 100 /per sq. yard
7
in place of Rs. 250/ per sq. yard as determined by the Reference
Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the land owners was
dismissed.
9. Relying on the order dated 24.11.2017 passed in LAAS Nos.
303 of 2013 and 353 of 2015, the High Court vide order dated
19.12.2017 also disposed of LAAS No. 163 of 2016 filed by
Fakhruddin Ali (appellant herein), whose land was also acquired
in the same impugned Notification.
10. Challenging the impugned order of the High Court, the
present appeals have been filed by the land owners, questioning
the adequacy and grant of compensation with interest. The
Revenue Department has also filed an appeal assailing the
impugned order on the ground that the deductions for
development charge and the area of land used for development
have not been made by the High Court.
11. Learned senior counsel for the land owners submits that a
prayer was made before the Reference Court to compute the
compensation @ Rs. 1000/ per sq. yard with solatium @ 30%
on the market value as provided under Section 23(2), 12% p.a.
additional market value under Section 23(1)A of L.A. Act from
the date of notification under Section 4 till the date of award
along with statutory interest. The Reference Court after
8
considering the submissions so made and relying upon the copy
of the sale deed (Exb. A1) i.e. document No. 1208/81, the
judgments and decrees of the High Court in two appeals bearing
CCCA Nos. 6 of 1987 and 110 of 1987 arising out of the different
Original Petitions relating to the land of another village
Bahadurpur filed as Exb. A2 and A3, topo sketch Ex. A4,
maps of village Attapur and Mir Sagar as Exbs. A5 and A6 and
D.O. letter dated 28.8.2019 sent by the Revenue Divisional
Officer Exb. A7 and also the statement of the claimant PW1 and
the retired Government Surveyor PW2 and also considering the
statement of the Land Acquisition Officer RW1 and Deputy
CollectorcumRDO examined as RW2, determined the
compensation @ Rs. 250 per sq. yard enhancing the same from
Rs. 6 per sq. yard. It was also held that the land owners would
be entitled for solatium @ 30% on the market value, additional
market value along with interest @ 12% p.a. and the interest as
specified under Section 23(2) of L.A. Act. Before the High Court,
the adequacy of the said amount was questioned looking to the
surroundings of the land acquired and the market value on the
date of acquisition. It was urged during mediation, and as agreed
by the Revenue, compensation @ Rs. 350/ per sq. yard was
decided by Joint Memorandum of Compromise which was
9
accepted by the High Court. Later, the Revenue Department
filed recall petitions only on the ground that for the Joint
Memorandum of Compromise, permission from superior officers
have not been taken. The Revenue Department has not
questioned the rate as agreed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
but the High Court allowed the Recall Petitions and restored the
appeals and by the impugned order, reduced the compensation
to Rs. 100/ per sq. yard without any basis, applying the reverse
calculation.
12. On the other hand, in the appeal filed by Revenue
Department, it is urged that out of compensation so awarded,
development charges have not been deducted and the area
required for development has not been reduced while computing
the compensation at the rate so determined by the High Court
and prayed that the appeal filed by the Department may be
allowed dismissing the appeal filed by the land owners.
13. After having heard learned senior counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material brought on record, it is apparent
that the acquisition of land was made in the year 1981.
Indisputably, the land acquired is situated in a highly developed
area of the twin cities having amenities of water, electricity,
drainage, telephone, transport etc. The only sale deed filed by
10
the claimants Exb. A1 dated 21.09.1981 of village Bahadurpur
which is of adjacent village because no sale deed of village
Attapur in the said year was executed. As per topo sketch Exb.
A4, the distance between the two villages Bahadurpur and
Attapur is 1320 meters. The value of the said land as per said
sale deed was Rs. 200/ per sq. yard. Exbs. A2 and A3 are the
decrees passed in two cases in which the compensation has
been fixed @ Rs. 250/ per sq. yard of the land acquired at the
same time. The said documents find support from the
testimony of PW1 and PW 2. The departmental witness RW2
in his statement admitted that in Katedan Village, an industrial
estate is situated at the distance of 3 ½ k.m. from Attapur
Village. The Agricultural University, National Police Academy is
also nearby. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh is also
situated within a distance of 3 K.M. from the land acquired.
The said land is required for laying the filter beds for Nehru
Zoological Park. The evidence as produced by the land owners
has not been rebutted by filing any document. On the contrary,
the departmental witness has admitted before the Reference
Court that the acquired land of the village is a prominent area
within the vicinity of the city of Hyderabad. In absence of having
any material on record, in our view, the Reference Court rightly
11
relied on Exb. A1 sale deed of adjacent Village Bahadurpur.
The acquired land may have been situated in Village Attapur
but it is adjacent to Village Bahadurpur, where the land value
was fixed as Rs. 200 per sq. yard. While granting the
compensation of the adjacent piece of land, the Court decided
value @ Rs. 250/ per sq. yard as mentioned in decrees Exbs. A
2 & A3. The D.O. letter of Revenue Development Officer dated
28.8.1991 acknowledges minimum value @ Rs. 200 per sq. yard
on the date of acquisition. It is also relevant to observe that
after sending the matter for mediation, Joint Memorandum of
Compromise was entered into by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
wherein the Mediator fixed the rate @ Rs. 350/ per sq. yard in
place of Rs. 500/ per sq. yard as agreed by the Revenue
Department. In Recall Petitions, the said joint memorandum of
compromise was challenged only on the ground that such
compromise was signed without permission of the superior
officer without challenging that the value of land as offered is on
higher side. Therefore, in our view, the High Court committed
an error in computing the compensation @ Rs. 100 per sq. yard
ignoring the unrebutted documents produced by the land
owners and without any cogent material on record, by applying
reverse calculation. In our view, as per the testimony of the
12
departmental witness RW2, it is clear that the land acquired is
near to the Agricultural University, National Police Academy and
High Court of A.P., which is now in the heart of the city of
Hyderabad. Considering the aforesaid and, taking note of the
date of acquisition i.e. 1981 which is about 40 years ago, the
value of the said land cannot be computed at the rate less than
Rs. 250/ per sq. yard which is supported by the evidence
brought on record by the land owners.
14. We now revert to the issue raised in the appeal filed by the
Revenue Department on the point of deduction of development
charge and the area of the land used for development. Recently
in the case of Reddy Veerana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
2022 SCC Online 562, the deduction of the development
Others
charge was denied. The facts of the present case is not
uncommon to the said case. As discussed above, it is apparent
that the land in the present case was acquired 40 years back in
the year 1981 and the compensation was decided by LAO after
litigating in courts only @ Rs. 6 per sq. yard. The land acquired
is now in the heart of city of Hyderabad where the cost of the
land has been increased more than 100 times. The development
of the city has already taken place. The land owners, whose
land has been utilized 40 years back, now cannot be compelled
13
to pay the development charge for the development which has
already taken place, only for a parcel of land to which they have
not given compensation up to decades. Therefore, the plea taken
by the Revenue Department sans merit.
15. In view of the foregoing, the appeals filed by the land
owners are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue
Department are dismissed. The impugned judgment passed by
the High Court stands setaside, restoring the order of the
Reference Court. The amount of compensation, as determined
by the Reference Court, be calculated and be paid now within a
period of two months from the date of this judgment. In the
facts of the case, the parties to bear their own costs.
..………….……………….J.
( )
S. ABDUL NAZEER
……...……………………J.
( J.K. MAHESHWARI )
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 22, 2022.
14