/2022 INSC 0995/
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
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
Others  2022 SCC 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 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