THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15221 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners were assigned an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas; Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.1.30 guntas of land, respectively, in survey No.82 of Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District, by the Government long ago. The A.P. Housing Board, the 3rd respondent, intended to establish a housing colony in Gorrekunta, which is in the suburban of Warangal Town. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), was published on 22.07.1985, proposing to acquire 140 acres of patta land. Proceedings in accordance with the Act were carried out and possession of the identified land was taken. The possession of an extent of Acs.5.20 guntas of land in survey No.82, which included Acs.2.30 guntas of land owned by the petitioners, was taken by the Housing Board in the year 1991. The petitioners were paid compensation in the form of ex-gratia in the year 1994, on the basis of the market value that prevailed as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 22.07.1985. The petitioners went on making representations for fixing the market value of their land, as it exists in the year 1991, when the possession was taken. As a matter of fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, who incidentally was the Land Acquisition Officer, accepted the said contention, and addressed letters to the 3rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that no steps have been taken so far, on such recommendation. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, admitting the factum of taking over the possession of the lands that were assigned to the petitioners. It is, however, stated that though the lands of the petitioners were not included in the requisition, the possession thereof is deemed to have been taken along with the other lands, acquired through notification, dated 22.07.1985. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioners are assignees of small extents of land in survey No.82 of Gorrekunta Village. In the year 1985, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued to acquire 140 acres of patta land. The lands assigned to the petitioners were not included in it. However, possession of their land was taken in the year 1991. They were paid compensation in the form of ex-gratia and 30% solatium, on the basis of the market value as it existed in 1985. Had it been a case where the possession of the lands of the petitioners was taken along with the other acquired lands, the petitioners would not have been entitled for any further amount. The record supports the case of the petitioners that the possession was taken only in the year 1991. Reference can be made in this context, to the letter, dated 13.10.1997 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent. The relevant portion reads as under: “In fact this land was not requisitioned before notification by the requisitioning department i.e. APHB. But during the construction of houses the housing board has simply occupied the lands in Sy.No.82 extent (5.20) acres in the year 1991 without filing requisition. He has therefore requested to refix the market value and payment may be made taking into consideration the date of taking over of the land in May, 1991.” Therefore, the ex-gratia ought to have been paid as per the rates that prevailed in 1991. The Government issued orders from time to time, directing payment of ex-gratia and solatium to the assignees, in the event of the assigned land being resumed to the Government. This Court held that the ex-gratia, must be equivalent to market value. It was obviously on this basis the petitioners were paid the ex-gratia as per the market value and solatium of 30%. The only dispute is as to the year, with reference to which, the ex-gratia must be calculated. Since the possession was taken in the year 1991, the market value prevailing in that year must be taken into account. The petitioners were paid the amount on the basis of the market value, of the year 1985. Therefore, they are entitled to be paid the balance. Strictly speaking, the matter must go back to the respondents for determination of the market value, as it existed in the year 1991. A detailed exercise needs to be undertaken and it becomes doubtful as to whether the relevant records are available at this point of time. Judicial notice of the factum of substantial escalation of value of the land from year to year can be taken. This Court is of the view that the escalation @10% per year from 1985 can safely be adopted. Therefore, the market value payable for the lands of the petitioners, as it existed in the year 1991, would be at 60% over and above the one that prevailed in the year 1985. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing the 3rd respondent to pay the difference of the market value calculated at 60% upon Rs.38,720/- per acre which was the market value of the land that prevailed in the year 1985. He shall also pay 30% of the solatium on the differential amount. The payment shall be made within two months from today. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.06.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ