THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR.versusISMAIL BHAI AND OTHERS

                         [2022] 8 S.C.R. 837                           837


        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR.                          A
                                 v.
                  ISMAIL BHAI AND OTHERS
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 8727-28 of 2022)
                      NOVEMBER 22, 2022                                B

     [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Computation
of, by High Court – When not proper – Held: Acquired land of the
village is a prominent area within the vicinity of the city of         C
Hyderabad – It 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. yards – Land acquired is now in the heart of city of
Hyderabad where the cost of the land has increased more than 100
times – Value of the said land cannot be computed at the rate less
than Rs. 250/- per sq. yard which is supported by the evidence         D
brought on record by the land owners – Therefore, High Court
committed error in computing the compensation @ Rs.100 per sq.
Yard – Further, development of the city has already taken place –
Land owners, whose land has been utilized 40 years back, now
cannot be compelled to pay the development charge for the              E
development which has already taken place, only for a parcel of
land to which they have not given compensation up to decades –
Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside – Order of
Reference Court restored.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court                              F
      HELD: 1.1 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,        G
drainage, telephone, transport etc. The only sale deed filed by
the claimants Exb. A-1 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. A-4, the
                                                                       H
                                837
838            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A     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 PW-1 and PW-2.
B
      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
C     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
D
      having any material on record, the Reference Court rightly relied
      on Exb. A-1 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
E     adjacent piece of land, the Court decided value @ Rs. 250/- per
      sq. yard as mentioned in decrees Exbs. A-2 & A-3. 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
F
      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
G     without permission of the superior officer without challenging
      that the value of land as offered is on higher side. Therefore, 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. As per the testimony of
H
  THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR. v. ISMAIL                        839
                BHAI AND OTHERS

the departmental witness RW-2, it is clear that the land acquired        A
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/
                                                                         B
- per sq. yard which is supported by the evidence brought on
record by the land owners. [Para 13][845-B-H; 846-A-C]
      1.2 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     C
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 to pay the development charge for the
development which has already taken place, only for a parcel of          D
land to which they have not given compensation up to decades.
Therefore, the plea taken by the Revenue Department sans merit.
The impugned judgment passed by the High Court stands set
aside, 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            E
the date of this judgment. [Paras 14, 15][846-E-F]
      Reddy Veerana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
      2022 SCC Online 562 – referred to.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal Nos.8727-               F
8728 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and The State of
Andhra Pradesh in L.A.A.S. No.303 of 2013 and dated 08.10.2018 in
Contempt Case No.908 of 2018 in L.A.A.S. No.303 of 2013.                 G
      With
      Civil Appeal Nos.8729-8732 And 8733-8734 of 2022.
      K. Radhakrishan, Sheshadri Naidu, Ravi Shankar Jandhayala, Sr.
Advs., P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, M/s Venkat
                                                                         H
840            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A     Palwai Law Associates, Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, Rudrajit
      Ghosh, Tarun Gupta, Abhishek Sharma, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,
      Sudhir Kumar Ojha, Sunny Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
B
            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
C     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
D     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
E     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 them to
      approach again the High Court. The land owners filed Writ Petition No.
F     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
G     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
H     Court bearing LAAS Nos. 303 of 2013 and 330 of 2015. The land owners
  THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR. v. ISMAIL                              841
       BHAI AND OTHERS [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

had also filed an appeal bearing LAAS No. 353 of 2015 questioning the          A
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          B
      mediator works out, exhibiting the necessary 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                  C
      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        D
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          E
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%                 F
      Solatium on market value under Section 23(2) and 12% p.a.
      Addl. Market Value u/s23(1) from the date of Notification
      03.03.1981 to 07.06.1997 as per Award.
      The claim from the above after calculation of interest the
      parties after deduction of the payment made in EP No. 11 of              G
      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
                                                                               H
842            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C           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/
D           - per Sq. Yard. Accordingly a 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.
E           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.
F           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
G     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
H           this court dated 01.02.2016.
  THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR. v. ISMAIL                           843
       BHAI AND OTHERS [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

      2. From the report of the Mediation and Arbitration Centre attached   A
      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        B
      Joint Memorandum of Compromise 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      C
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          D
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           E
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          F
compensation @ Rs. 100 /-per sq. yard 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     G
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
                                                                            H
844            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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 considering the submissions so made and relying
      upon the copy of the sale deed (Exb. A-1) i.e. document No. 1208/81,
C     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.
      A-2 and A-3, topo sketch Ex. A-4, maps of village Attapur and Mir
      Sagar as Exbs. A-5 and A-6 and D.O. letter dated 28.8.2019 sent by the
      Revenue Divisional Officer Exb. A-7 and also the statement of the
D     claimant PW1 and the retired Government Surveyor PW2 and also
      considering the statement of the Land Acquisition Officer RW-1 and
      Deputy Collector-cum-RDO examined as RW-2, 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
E
      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
F     decided by Joint Memorandum of Compromise which was 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
G     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
H     have not been deducted and the area required for development has not
  THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANR. v. ISMAIL                              845
       BHAI AND OTHERS [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

been reduced while computing the compensation at the rate so determined        A
by the High Court andprayed 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
                                                                               B
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 the claimants Exb. A-1 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. A-4, the
distance between the two villages Bahadurpur and Attapur is 1320 meters.       C
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 PW-1 and PW- 2.The departmental witness RW-2 in his
statement admitted that in Katedan Village, an industrial estate is situated   D
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
                                                                               E
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 relied on Exb. A-1 sale deed of adjacent
Village Bahadurpur. The acquired land may have been situated in Village        F
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 & A-3. 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   G
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
                                                                               H
846              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 8 S.C.R.


A     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,
B     as per the testimony of the departmental witness RW-2, 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
C     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 Others 2022 SCC
D     Online 562, the deduction of the development 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
E
      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 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,
F     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
      set-aside, restoring the order of the Reference Court. The amount of
      compensation, as determined by the Reference Court, be calculated and
G     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.

      Divya Pandey                                               Appeals disposed of.
      (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

H