IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU APPEAL SUIT NO: 578 OF 2002 Between: 1. G.Savithri Devi 2. Smt. T. Sujatha, 3. G. Sudtrakar Rao, 4. Ch. Swarnalatha, All F|/o Jubleepura, Khammam District. ...PETITIONEFURESPONDENTS AND The Land Acquisition Officer (The Revenue Divisional Officer), Khammam' .RESPON DENT/APPELLANT Petitioner under Section 1 14 of CPC Fl/w Section 1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to review the Judgment and Decree dated 03.06.2010 in A.S.No.578 of 2OO2, in so far as it is related to the interest part from the date of taking possession and not from the date of notification in so far as amounts under different heads under section 23 of L.A. Act, in view of various pronouncements as on the even date of the Supreme Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the GP for Appeal for the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER REVIEW l.A.No.2 of 2013 IN L THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU REVIEW I.A.No.2 of 2013 IN A.S.NO.578 0F 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble P. Naueen Rao, J) This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in A.S.No.578 of 2OO2. -2. The iand to an extent of 1058.75 square yards in Sy.No.29/2 of Khammam Revenue Village was acquired for public purpose. However, even before the process to acquire the land was set in motion, possession of land was taken and much later the land acquisition notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable as Rs.36,152/-, awarded interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum for one year i.e., from 28.05.1988 to 27.05.1989 and thereafter, interest at the rate of 75o/o on the notional value. A total of Rs.5,5O,168/- was the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same was paid to claimants. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference -2- under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act'). The said reference was registered as O.p.No.26 of 1999 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The reference Court found that the possession of land belonging to claimants was taken on 01.10.1986. The reference Court noticed that the compensation determined by Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and thereby, enhanced the compensation to Rs.600/-per square yard iostead of Rs.300/- per square yard. The reference Court ordered interest at the rate of 9ok per annum from the date of taking possession i.e,, 01.10.1986 till 30.09.1987 and rhereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit of entire market value. 3. Aggrieved by the said orders of reference Court, the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer/Land Acquisition Officer, preferred A.S.No.578 of 2OO2. This Court upheld the decision of the reference Court with .df"r"r,"a to enhancement of compensation per square yard. However, this Court found that the reference Court erred in awarding interest from the date of taking possession and to that extent this Court set aside the award holding that claimants were entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from 30.11.1995 for a period of one year i.e., till 29.1)..1996 and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till realization. This Court further ordered paJment of additional market value at tlre rate of j.2o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from issuance of land acquisition nodfication i.e., 30.11.199S till the dare of the award i.e., 22.12.1997. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Court erred in not granting interest or rent or damages for the period covered by possession of the land till the date of issuance of land acquisition notification. In support of his contention that the claimants were entitled to rent or damages, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.L. Jain (D) By Lrs Vs. DDA & Othersl. 5. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Appeals, justifres the order passed by this Court with reference to modifying the directions issued by the reference Court. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Tahera Khotoon & others Vs. Revenue Divlsional Officer/Land Acquistion Officer & others2. -J- I (zooa) q scc rg '(2otq) t3 scc rt3 -4- 6. The only issue for consideration is whether this Court erred in not granting the rent or damages for the period from the date of taking possession ti1l the date of issuance of land acquisition notification while depriving interest awarded by the reference Court. The date of taking possession i.e., 01.10.1986 and the date of issuance of land acquisition notification i.e., 30.11.1995 is not in dispute. While modifuing the directions of the reference Court, this Court has not looked into the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.L._Jain (supra). In R.L. Jaln (supra), noticing t-he difference of opinion in the two judgments, the issue was referred to the larger Bench. 7. In R.L. Jain (supra) the issue considered by the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, "whether in a case uhere possession is taken before the issuance of notification under Seition 4(1) of tte Land Acquisition Act, the claimant (owner of tLrc land) is entitled to interest for such anteior peiod in accordance with Section 34 of the said Act". The Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the reference by holding that *the owner of the land is onlg entitled to get rent or damages for use and ocanpotion for the peiod tle Gouernment retains possession of the propertg". The Hon'ble Supreme Court also -5- L observed that mere taking possession of the land does not alter the status of tJ.e ownership and the owner is always entitled to recover the possession and therefore, for that period he is not entitled to claim interest. 8. The said decision was followed in Tahera Khotoon (supra). However, in Tahera Khotoon (supra), having regard to peculiar facts of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed percentage of damages payable to claimants instead of remanding to the Land Acquisition Officer. 9. ln terms of the reference answered by the Hon'ble. Supreme Court and the subsequent decisions, the owner of the land is entitled to claim rent or damages for the period prior to land acquisition notification. As the above mentioned aspect was not considered by this Court while deciding the appeal and also setting aside the interest ordered by the reference Court for the period prior to issuance of land acquisition notification, we are of the opinion that to that extent there is an error on the face of the record warranting correction. -6- 10. With the consent of both sides, the matter is finally disposed of 12. It is held that the claimants are entitled for rent or damages for the period from taking the possession i.e., 01.10.1986 Lill the date of issuance of land acquisition notification i.e., 30.11.1995. The District Collector, Khammam, is directed to make an assessment of rent or damages that can be granted to the claimants for the above mentioned period. To arrive at such assessment, he shall take guidance from the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MadlshetH Bala Ramul Vs. Land Acquisltion Officer3 and Tahera r lzooz; I scc oso 11. In this review, petitioners are seeking to award interest. Since the claim of interest for the period covered by possession prior to land acquisition notification is now settled by tJ.e Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants are not entitled to seek interest for ttre said period. The land owner is entitled to be compensated in the form of rent or damages for using his Iand and depriving the claimants to use the land for any activity, till due - process of acquisition was initiated by the competent authority. ,=) 7 I(hotoon (supra). In these cases the Hon'lcle Supreme Court ordered determination of rent/damages at the rate of 15%o on the compensation awarded. The compensation includes market value, additional market value and solatium. This entire exercise shall be completed. by the District Collector, Khammam, and the amount of damages worked out in the said manner be paid to the claimants within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// a SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge at Khammam. 2. One CC to Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the GP for Appeals, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] , 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy gbr HIGH COURT DATED: 0610412022 ORDER REVIEW l.A.No.2 ol 2013 IN AS.No.578 of 2002 ALLOWING THE PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( tr. 1i{E r..+ 2\ lu[ 2w fX }, \ .-.,9p,('rc 1 7n t ii.i \i C. \.'r ",(.