The Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. vs Ismail Bhai & Ors. (with connected appeals)
Background
Land in Attapur village, Hyderabad, was acquired in 1981 to extend the Nehru Zoological Park, but for years no award or compensation was paid, forcing the landowners into repeated rounds of litigation (writ petitions, a contempt case, and a reference to a civil court) just to get compensation fixed. A reference court eventually fixed Rs. 250 per sq. yard in 2012; the parties later reached a mediated compromise at Rs. 350 per sq. yard in 2016, which the High Court accepted, but the State later got that compromise recalled on a technicality (lack of superior-officer permission for the officer who signed it) and, on reconsideration, slashed the compensation to just Rs. 100 per sq. yard.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no proper basis for reducing compensation to Rs. 100 per sq. yard, since it applied an unexplained "reverse calculation" while ignoring unrebutted evidence (a comparable sale deed and prior decrees) supporting Rs. 250 per sq. yard for land that, 40 years after acquisition, now sits in the heart of urban Hyderabad near a university, police academy, and the High Court itself. The Court restored the reference court's original Rs. 250 per sq. yard award with statutory solatium and interest, and separately rejected the State's claim to deduct "development charges," holding that landowners who waited decades for compensation cannot also be made to pay for development that occurred entirely without them.
Lesson Learnt
Where a compromise or settlement is set aside on a technical procedural ground (such as an official lacking prior permission), that does not itself justify slashing the underlying compensation without fresh evidence. Courts must still ground compensation in the actual, unrebutted evidence on record, especially decades after a landowner was first dispossessed.