30.04.2026 1 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD
Present: SMT. C.M. RAJYALAKSHMI,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADILABAD
THURSDAY THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch OPs 01/2024 and 02/2024)
Between:
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad.
…Referring Officer //And//
1.Gaddam Padma W/o. G. Ganga Reddy, Age: 65 years, Occ: Household,
2.G. Narayan Reddy S/o. Ganga Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3.G. Surender Reddy S/o. Ganga Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ:Agriculture,
4.Saritha W/o. Kalchap Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: Housewife,
5.Sangeetha W/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Jainath Village and Mandal, Dist; Adilabad.
6.V. Raghu Reddy S/o. Late Kista Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Claimant in OP
7.V. Ram Reddy S/o. Late Kista Reddy, Age: 40 03/2024 years, Occ: Agriculture,
8.V. Ramesh Reddy S/o. Late V. Bhoja Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ:Agriculture,
9.V. Prabhavathi D/o. Late Bhoja Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
10. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Late Bhoja Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee, All are R/o. Village & Mandal: Tamsi, Dist. Adilabad.
30.04.2026 2 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
1. Ch. Raghuvendar Reddy, S/o: Asha Reddy, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Ch. Swamy Reddy, S/o: Naranna, Age 60 Claimant in OP years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tamsi village 01/2024 and Mandal, District Adilabad. All are R/o:Tamsi village and Mandal, District Adilabad.
1. Ch. Venkat Reddy, S/o: Late Chinna Narsa Reddy, Age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Ch. Swamy Reddy, S/o: Late Chinna Narsa Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Gopidi Suvarna, D/o: Late Chinna Narsa Claimant in OP Reddy, Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, 02/2024
4. Sarsan Narsa Bai, D/o:Late Chinna Narsa Reddy, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
5. Addi Sujatha, D/o:Late Chinna Narsa Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
6. Ch. Raghuvendar Reddy, S/o: Asha Reddy, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, … Claimants (As per order dt:04.01.2019 in IA 151/2024 Ops 01/2024 and
02/2024 are clubbed with this OP 03/2024 and joint trial is permitted
accordingly common evidence is recorded in OP 03/2024 for all the above
Ops).
These batch of O.Ps have been heard finally on 27.02.2026 in the presence of Sri P. Dayakar, Government Pleader for Petitioner/Referring Officer of Sri B.Satyavrath, Advocate for all the claimants and upon hearing both sides and having stood for consideration till this day this court made the following:-
COMMON ORDER
1.These petitions arise out of the reference u/Sec. 28-A(3) of the
Land Acquisition Act made by the Revenue Divisional Officer/LAO,
Adilabad for awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre and also to award 30% solatium and 12% additional market
30.04.2026 3 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) value from the date of notification i.e. from 05.11.1982 to 05.03.1986 up to date of award and the claimants are awarded interest 9% p.a. from the date of possession to till expiry of the one year and 15% interest per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment on aforesaid amount with regard to the acquisition of the lands i.e., (i) the land bearing Sy.No.18/2 to an extent Ac.08-34 gts, (ii) the land bearing Sy.No.85/2 to an extent
Ac.10-08 gts, and (iii) the land bearing Sy.No.84/2 to an extent
Ac.09-36 gts. All the lands which are situated at Tamsi Village &
Mandal, Dist. Adilabad. The claimants are owners and possessors of the above acquired lands.
2.It is submitted that, the LAO/RDO referred the matter
U/Sec.28-A(3) of L.A. Act in Proceeding No.B/4712/1998 dated 18.04.1999 for adjudication of the correct market value as per the
Judgment passed in O.P.No.245/1987 and batch cases.
3.It is submitted that, the Hon’ble Court passed the Judgment in
L.A.O.P.No.247/1987 on 09.12.1992 awarding the compensation of the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre and also awarded 30% solatium and 12% additional market value from the date of notification i.e., from 05.11.1982 to 05.03.1986 upto date of award and the claimants are awarded interest 9% p.a. from the date of possession to till expiry of
30.04.2026 4 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) the one year and 15% interest per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment on aforesaid amount.
4.It is submitted that, the claimants filed the petition U/Sec.28-A of land acquisition Act for re-determination of market value as per the
Judgment passed in L.A.O.P.No.247/1987 batch cases so the claimants filed the writ petitions 15400, 15409, 15410, 15416 of 1993 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Writ Petitions were allowed on 15.12.1993 with a direction to LAO / RDO to re- determination of compensation U/Sec. 28-A of LA Act.
5.It is submitted that, the LAO Proceeding No.B/4712/1988 fixed the market value @ Rs.12,000/- per acre to the above said land and awarded 30% solatium and 12% additional market value but the
Revenue Divisional officer has awarded interest land value only but the LAO has awarded the interest on land value only instead of awarding total compensation amount i.e. the land value 30% solatium and 12% additional market value so the claimants made an application U/Sec. 28-A(3)of L.A. Act 17.05.1999 alleging that the compensation was not re-determined as per the civil court order in
LAOP No.247/1987 batch cases as required under the said provision.
30.04.2026 5 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
6. It is submitted that, the L.A.O. has not referred the petition
U/Sec.28-A (3) of L.A. Act, so the claimant has filed Writ Appeal
No.1006/2010 in the Hon’ble High Court so the Hon’ble High Court has directed to RDO / LAO to refer the claimant petition U/Sec. 28-A (3) of the L.A. Act to the civil court on 13.10.2023, so the RDO has referred the same to Civil Court U/Sec. 28-A (3) of L.A. Act.
7.It is submitted that, the other claimants filed E.P.No.4/2002 to 22/2002 batch cases in O.P.No.236/87, 254/87 batch cases and other batch cases for claiming interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional market value. So the Hon’ble Court has allowed all EPs 4/2002 to 22/2002 batch cases awarding interest on 30% solatium and 12%
additional market value on aggregate compensation amount as above
1 & 2 on column No.3 of the decree on land value and additional market value. But the LAO has not awarded on 30% solatium on 12% additional market value as per the decree passed in LAOP
No.247/1987 and in batch cases at the time of re-determination of the market value U/Sec.28(A) of LA Act, in file No.B/4712/1998 dt:
18.04.1999. The petitioners filed order copy of the E.P.No.8/2002 in
O.P.No.242/1987 as a reference in all EPs 4/2002 to 22/2002 same order have been passed by the Hon’ble Court on 11.07.2002 so the petitioners filed the certified copy of the order passed in
E.P.No.8/2002 in the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Court has passed
30.04.2026 6 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) the order on 11.07.2002 in E.P.No.8/2002 in LAOP 242/1987 and other batch cases in this second E.P. as per the Para 4 of the decree in question and it is clear that the decree holders are entitled to claim interest over the aggregate amount worked out from para No.1 to 3 pertaining to market value, additional market value and solatium of the said decree and moreover in view of the above referred three authorities relied by the DHrs also it is evident that claimants are entitled to interest over the market value, additional market value and 30% solatium.
8.It is submitted that, the Hon’ble Court has ordered to issue the warrant of attachment of schedule movable properties of JDrs and allowed in all E.Ps. filed by the decree holders on 11.07.2002, hence the claimants are entitled to interest on 30% solatium and 12%
additional market value in the above case as per the order passed in
E.P. No.8/2002 and in batch cases and allowed all EPs calculated the
interest by the Decree Holders.
9.It is submitted that, the LAO/RDO has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the order passed in E.P.no.8/2002 in
O.P.No.242/1987 and in batch cases in C.R.P.No.2172/2003 and pursuing this the Hon’ble High Court has passed the order in
C.R.P.No.2172/2003 and in batch cases in these Revision Petitions is
30.04.2026 7 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) on one and same as the point involved in the Revision Petitions is the same and they are being disposed in a common order in view of latest judgment of Apex court regarding the interest and on solatium and interest on additional market value as reported in the decision in
Surender vs. Union of India, 2001 (7) SCC 37 and Nagpur
Improvement Trust Vs. Vasantro 2002(7) SCC 657 wherein the order of the Lower Court granting interest on solatium on additional market value was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, so the
Hon’ble Court has dismissed C.R.P.No.2172/2003 in E.P.No.8/2002 in
all batch cases on 02.05.2003. Then the LAO has deposited entire amount in all EPs 4/2002 to 22/2002 batch cases calculating the interest on solatium and on additional market value as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
10.It is submitted that, the L.A.O. has not calculated the interest on total market value @ Rs.12,000/- per acre as fixed by District
Court in LAOP No.247/1987 batch cases till the date of passing of the award, thereafter the LAO should calculate the interest on entire market value from the date of possession i.e. 20.10.1981 to 05.03.1986 upto date of award. At the time of passing this supplementary award in File No.B/4712/1998, L.A.O. Calculated the interest on Rs.6,000/- per acre only instead of calculating the interest on Rs.12,000/- per acre land value.
30.04.2026 8 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
11.It is submitted that, the L.A.O. should have passed appropriate towards decreetal amount as per order 21 Rule 1, 2 & 4 and appropriation payments have first to be appropriated towards interest and balance if any towards the principal amount as per the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court in 1997(2) ALD in C.R.P.No.2860/1996 dt:
29.01.1997 but LAO has not paid and calculated interest at the time of passing of the award in File No.B/4712/1998 and praying the court to pass the order to L.A.O./R.D.O. to pay the interest on the total land value of Rs.12,000/- per acre and award interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional market value as per the decree and
Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in LAOP No.247/1987 and 245/1987 and batch cases and pass the decree and that the claimants are also entitled to 30% solatium on 12% additional market value as per the column No.3 of the decree passed and award the interest of 9% from the date of possession from 20.10.1981 to 20.10.1982 thereafter 15% interest from 20.10.1982 to till payment as in O.P.No.247/1987 dt; 09.12.1992, in the interest of justice.
12.On the basis of above pleadings the following points are formulated for determination:-
1. Whether the claimants are entitled to seek relief to claim interest of 30% solatium and 12% market value as per the award passed by the Honble Court in LAOP 245/1987?
30.04.2026 9 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to seek relief to claim interest of 30% Solatium on 12% of additional market value as per the decree passed in OP 245/1987.
3. To what relief?
13. POINT NO.1:
Whether the claimants are entitled to seek relief to claim interest of 30% solatium and 12% market value as per
the award passed by the Hon’ble Court in LAOP
245/1987 ?
13.1 One G. Narayana Reddy/Claimant in OP 03/2024 was examined as PW-1 on behalf of claimants and also on behalf of claimants in OPs 01/2024 and 02/2024 batch O.P.s. According to PW-1 they are the owners and possessors of the acquired lands i.e., (i) the land bearing
Sy.No.18/2 to an extent Ac.08-34 gts, of Land which is situated at
Tamsi Village & Mandal, Dist. Adilabad, (ii) the land bearing
Sy.No.85/2 to an extent Ac.10-08 gts, of Land which is situated at
Tamsi Village & Mandal, Dist. Adilabad and (iii) the land bearing
Sy.No.84/2 to an extent Ac.09-36 gts, of Land which is situated at
Tamsi Village & Mandal, Dist. Adilabad.
13.2. The claimant in OP no.3/2024 got examined as Pw1 and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7, where Ex.A1 is certified copy of Judgment and Decree passed in LAOP No.247/1987, dated 09.12.1992, Ex.P2 is certified copy of order passed in EP No.8/2002, in LAOP
NO.242/1987, dated 11.07.2002 and batch case, Ex.P3 is certified
30.04.2026 10 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) copy of order passed in C.R.P No.2172/2003, dated 02.05.2003 and batch cases order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Ex.P4 is certified copy of award and calculation memo passed by the LAO in proceeding No.4712/1998, dated 18.04.1999, Ex.P5 is certified copy of order passed in EP No.12/2002, dated 11.07.2002, Ex.P6 is certified copy of order passed in EP No.10/2002, dated 11.07.2002 and Ex.P7 is Original copy of 28-A petition pending RDO, dated 20.04.1993.
During the cross examination of Pw-1, he admitted that he did not file 28(A) application. He deposed that his father filed the same. He denied that the nature of land in the present petition is different from the land in LAOP No.1 and 2. He deposed that all the lands are of same kind. That the survey number of his land is 18 and the extent of land acquired by the Government is 8 acre 34 guntas. He denied that his land is different from land of others in LAOP No247/1987. He denied that the land acquired in the present O.P and the above O.P are not acquired under the same award. He denied that the Government has paid compensation as per the orders passed in O.P 347/1987. He denied that the Government has paid benefits as per law. He denied that the interest given by RDO is correct and he is not eligible to receive any amount from the Government. He denied
30.04.2026 11 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) that the documents filed by him are not valid. He denied that he is deposing false.
13.3One Done Ram Reddy filed chief affidavit and got examined as Pw-2.
During the cross examination of Pw-2, he denied that the nature of land in the present petition is different from the land in LAOP No.1 and 2. He deposed that all the lands are of same kind. That the survey number of his land is 18 and the extent of land acquired by the Government is 8 acre 34 guntas. He denied that his land is different from land of others in LAOP
No247/1987. He denied that the land acquired in the present
O.P and the above O.P are not acquired under the same award.
He denied that the Government has paid compensation as per the orders passed in O.P 347/1987. He denied that the
Government has paid the benefits as per law. He denied that the interest given by RDO is correct and he is not eligible to receive any amount from the Government. He denied that the documents filed by him are not valid. He denied that he is deposing false to help PW1.
30.04.2026 12 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) 13.4 One Ch. Asha Reddy filed his chief affidavit and got examined as Pw-3.
During the cross examination of Pw-3, he denied that the nature of land in the present petition is different from the land in LAOP No.1 and 2. He deposed that all the lands are of same kind. That the survey number of his land is 18 and the extent of land acquired by the Government is 8 acre 34 guntas. He denied that his land is different from land of others in LAOP
No247/1987. He denied that the land acquired in the present
O.P and the above O.P are not acquired under the same award.
He denied that the Government has paid compensation as per the orders passed in O.P. 347/1987. He denied that the
Government has paid benefits as per law. He denied that the interest given by RDO is correct and he is not eligible to receive any amount from the Government. He denied that the documents filed by him are not valid. He denied that he is deposing false to help PW1.
14.On the other hand the referring officer/LAO/B. Sravanthi filed her chief affidavit and got examined as Rw-1 and got marked Ex.B1 on their behalf.
30.04.2026 13 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
During the cross examination, Rw-1 deposed that the original award is passed on 23.04.1986. Ex.B1 is corresponding to the original award. Date of possession as per original award is 20.10.1981. Date of notification is 05.11.1982. She admitted that the supplementary award is passed under Ex.B1 as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P No.15416/93. She denied that they have not paid solatium @ 30% to the claimants as per decree passed in OP No.247/1987. He deposed that the solatium has been paid. She denied that solatium has been paid only on land value and it is not paid as per 12% of additional market value as per Ex.A1. She admitted that the then RDO has not paid 9% and 15% interest on Solatium 30% and 12%
additional value. She admitted that this Court has passed orders
in EP Nos.12/2002, 8/2002 and 10/2002 granting 30% Solatium and 12% additional value as per Ex.P1. She admitted that the revision has been preferred against the orders passed in EPs and the same was dismissed. He denied that as per Court decree the amount is not paid to the claimants. She deposed that the amount has been paid to the claimants as per the Court decree. She denied that the award passed by the LAO is not in accordance OP No.245/1987 and other batch cases.
30.04.2026 14 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
15.On the other hand, the Referring Officer/RDO Adilabad has been examined and Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of L.A.O.
16.The Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the land acquisition Officer has acquired the lands of claimants in LAOP 01/2024 in Sy.no 84/2 to an extent of acres 9.36 gts and in
LAOP 2/2024 in Sy.no 85/2 to an extent of acre 10.08gts and in
LAOP 3/2024 in Sy.No 18/2 to an extent of 8.34 gts of lands situated at Tamsi Village of Adilabad District for the formation of
Mathadi vagu Project in file No B/150/1983 dt 23.04.1986 and passed the award, connected to the same award and some other claimants were dissatisfied with the award and filed
U/sec.18 petition before land acquisition officer and referred the matter to civil court for enhancement of land value on the reference to the court the Hon’ble District court Judge Adilabad has passed the common order in LAOP 235/1987 to 254/1987 batch cases and same was clubbed in LAOP No 245/1987 batch cases and common order was passed on 09.12.1992 by enhancing the land value for Rs 12,000/- per acre to all the acquired lands and awarded 30% solatium on land value and on 12% Addl market value as per the column No.3 of the decree
30.04.2026 15 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) passed by the Hon’ble court, as per Ex.P1 in LAOP No 247/1987 and batch cases the Hon’ble court has also awarded 9% interest from date of possession i.e. from 20.10.1981 to 20.10.1982 thereafter 15% till payment on aforesaid amount as per the decree of column No 4 as per Ex. P1:
1. That the claimants in LAOP 1 to 3/2024 cases were not referred to civil court due to title dispute U/sec 30,31 of LA Act so the claimants in LAOP No 1/2024 Raghuvender Reddy and Ram Reddy and in LAOP 2/2024 late Chinna Narsa Reddy and Raghuvender Reddy and in LAOP 3/2024 late kista reddy, V. Ramesh Reddy and other claimants have filed U/sec 28-A of LA Act petition before RDO/LAO and u/sec 28-A of LA Act for re- determination of the amount of the compensation on basis of judgment passed by the District judge in LAOP No.247/1987 batch cases to re-determine the market value as per LAOP No. 247/1987 batch cases on 09.12.1992 U/sec.28-A of land acquisition act 1894.
2. That the claimants in LAOP No 1 to 3/2024 are entitled for benefits U/sec 28-A of LA Act the amount of the compensation payable to them and re-determine on the basis of amount of the compensation awarded by the District court in LAOP 247/1987 batch cases.
3. But the LAO has not Re-determine U/sec 28-A of LA Act even after filling the application before land acquisition officer subsequently the petitioners approached the Hon’ble high court ofAndhraPradeshandfiledwritpetition No.15400,15409,15410,15416/1993 Dt 15.12.1993 so the
Hon’ble High court of Andra Pradesh has allowed the above writ
petitions and directed the LAO to re-determine the land value U/sec 28-A of LA Act in accordance with LAOP No 245/1987 batch cases of District court Adilabad and same was mentioned by the LAO in Ex B1.
17.That the LAO proceedings No. B/4712/1998 has fixed the market value @12,000/-per acer to the above said land and awarded 30% solatium and 12% Addl market value but the RDO Adilabad has
30.04.2026 16 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) awarded interest on land value only instead of awarding total compensation amount i.e. the land value 30% solatium and 12% Addl market value so we have made an application U/Sec. 28-A (3) of LA
Act on 17.05.1999 as per Ex.P7 alleging that the compensation was not re – determined as per the civil court order in LAOP No. 247/1987 batch cases has to required under the said provision but the LAO has not referred the petition U/Sec.28-A (3) of LA Act, so the claimants have filed write Appeal No. 1006/ 2010 before the Hon’ble high court so the Hon’ble High Court has directed to RDO/LAO to refer their petition U/Sec 28-A (3) of LA Act to the civil court so the RDO has referred same to the civil court U/Sec 28-A (3) of LA Act.
18.In support of his above, the learned counsel relied on the following authority i.e., as per the Apex court reported in :
1.Surender vs Union of india,2001(5) ALD 136(SC) and Nagpur Improvement trust vs vasantrao 2002(6) ALD SCC 12 as per this citation the claimants are entitled the interest on aggregate compensation amount i.e. on land vale +30% solatium and 12% Addl market value but same is not paid by the LAO in the supplementary award to the claimants.
2.That the claimants are also entitled the interest U/sec 34 of LA Act “interest payable on “amount awarded”, at rate of 9% per annum from date of taking possession till deposit or payment of amount – in case this periods extends beyond one year interest payable for additional period at rate of 15% per annum.
3.That as per Land acquisition Act 1894- sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 – statutory benefits including additional amount under Section 23(1A), additional consideration (solatium) under section 23(2), and interest on entire compensation under section 34 would be due on enhanced
30.04.2026 17 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) amount of compensation as per citation 2025(5) ALD 57 (SC) discussed in page No 61, para 47,48
19.The learned counsel for the claimants with reference to the interest awarded by the L.A.O to the claimants on the compensation contended as the same is incorrect.
20.Further learned counsel for the claimants, claimed interest on the aggregate compensation including additional market value and solatium from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation by placing reliance on the below referred two authorities:--
1) Hon’ble supreme court in 1993(1) A.P.L.J. page 49 S.N.
his Lordship held that:
“Land acquisition Act 1894, section 23(1-A), 28 and 34 – claimants entitled to interest on Solatium as well as on 12%
additional market value under section 28 of section 34.
His lordship held that :If the different sub sections of section 23 are read together, the inescapable conclusion is that in addition to the market value as fixed under clause (I) marked value per annum as well as 30% on the market value as solatium popularly so called shall also be awarded.
Section 28 and 34 provide for interest payable on the compensation as awarded. It is significant to note that here the word‘ compensation is used in Juxtaposition to the words “Market value”. Therefore interest is payable on compensation and not on the market value. Interest is payable on the amount of compensation but also 12%
additional market value as well as on 30% solatium. Interest
is payable both on solatium as well as on 12% additional market value under section 28 and under sec.34 of the Land Acquisition Act.”
30.04.2026 18 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
2)Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2001(5) A.L.D. page 136 S.C. his
Lordship held that:
“Land acquisition Act, 1894 – Sec.34 and 23(2) interest on solatium to be paid under sec. 23(2) – compensation to be awarded includes not only the total sum arrived as per section 23(1) but also under the remaining sub sections thereof – claimant is entitled to the aggregate amount of compensation including interest – It cannot be said that solatium would attract only the escalated date of interest from the expiry of one year and three could be no interest on solatium proceeding that period.
Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.”
3)Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2002(6) A.L.D. 12 (S.C) Lordship held that: which reads as follows:- Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 23(1-A) – claimants are entitled to interest on the sums payable under sec. 23(1-A) including sub-sections (1), (1-A) and (2) there off.
4)Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025(5) A.L.D. 57 (S.C) Lordship held that: which reads as follows:- Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 23(1-A) - claimants are entitled to interest on the sums payable under “statutory benefits including additional amount under Section 23(1A), additional consideration (solatium) under section 23(2), and interest on entire compensation under section 34 would be due on enhanced amount of compensation”.
21.On the other hand the Government Pleader did not choose to file any judgment in support of their case.
22.Claimants also relied on Exs.P1 to P3, P5 and P6 which are confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Ex.P3. In view of the sections 23(1-A), 28 and 34 of the Act and also in view of the above referred authorities, I am of the opinion that, claimants are entitled to interest on the aggregate compensation including market value,
30.04.2026 19 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) 12% additional market value and 30% solatium from the date of possession i.e., from 20-10-1981 to the date of payment of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the first one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum upto the date of payment,
Thus this issue No.1 is answered, accordingly as above.
POINT NO.2: Whether the claimants are entitled to seek relief
to claim interest of 30% Solatium on 12% of
additional market value as per the decree passed
in OP 245/1987.
23.That as per Ex.P1 decree of the Hon’ble District Court, Adilabad in OP No. 247/87 in the column no. 3 of the decree it is clearly mentioned by the Hon’ble court that the claimants are entitled to solatium @ 30% on the aggregate arrived as above 1 & 2 i.e., on land value and additional market value but as per the calculation sheet submitted in Ex.B1 the Referring Officer has not paid the 30% solatium on 12% additional market value awarded by the Hon’ble
Court in OP 247/87 batch cases. Hence the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium on 12% additional market value as per Ex.P1/decree.
The Issue no.2 answered accordingly.
POINT NO.3: To what relief?
24.In view of my findings on points No.1 and 2, I am of the opinion that claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and other statutory benefits as held by me in the foregoing paras and also
30.04.2026 20 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024) relying on the Judgment passed by this Court/Ex.P1, P2, P5 and P6 and of Hon’ble High Court vide Ex.P3 which confirmed the judgment of the Hon’ble District Judge, Adilabad in LA.OP 247/1987 batch cases of same notification of this OPs in EP No. 12/2002 dt. 11.07.2002 vide CRP no.2172/2003, dt. 02.05.2003.
25. IN THE RESULT, the claimants are awarded interest at the rate of 9% on the aggregate compensation including market value, 12% additional market value and 30% solatium from the date of possession i.e., from 20-10-1981 to the date of payment of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the first one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum upto the date of payment on
Rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousand only) per acre for their acquired lands at Tamsi (village) and the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium on 12% additional market value as per Ex.P1/decree of the judgment of the Hon’ble District Judge, Adilabad in LA.OP 247/1987 and batch cases.
The claimants are entitled to share the compensation amount as per their shares fixed by L.A.O in his award under reference.
Accordingly above O.Ps are disposed off without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026. Digitally signed by RAJYA
LAKSHMI CHELLA MITTINTI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ADILABAD
30.04.2026 21 Common Order in L.A.OP.03 of 2024
(and Batch Ops 01/2024 and 02/2024)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Claimants: For L.A.O. Pw1: G. Narayana Reddy Rw1: B. Sravanthi Pw2: D. Ram Reddy Pw3: Ch. Asha Reddy
Exhibits marked
For Claimants:
Ex.P1: Certified copy of Judgment and Decree passed in LAOP No.247/1987, dated 09.12.1992. Ex.P2: Certified copy of order passed in EP No.8/2002, in LAOP NO.242/1987, dated 11.07.2002 and batch case. Ex.P3: Certified copy of order passed in C.R.P No.2172/2003,
dated 02.05.2003 and batch cases order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court.
Ex.P4: Certified copy of award and calculation memo passed by the LAO in proceeding No.4712/1998, dated 18.04.1999 Ex.P5: Certified copy of order passed in EP No.12/2002,
dated 11.07.2002.
Ex.P6: Certified copy of order passed in EP No.10/2002,
dated 11.07.2002
Ex.P7: Original copy of 28-A petition pending RDO,
dated 20.04.1993
For L.A.O.
Ex.B1: Attested copy of Award passed in Proceeding No.B/4712/98,
dated 18.04.1999.
Digitally signed by
RAJYA LAKSHMI
CHELLA MITTINTI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ADILABAD