The High Court · 2025

R/o H No.6-4-10l1, Flat No l0l, Bhavani Sri Shecla Avenue. Krishna Nagar Coloni . Bhohkpur, Secunderabad.

12. S. Narsirnulu S/o yadagir, R/o I{ No 25-36, Mallikarjunai Nagar, Ramchandrapurarn. Medak District"

13. Afreen Begum W/o MD. Afsar R/o FINo.1-7-23411, RB Nagar, Bhongir Mandal. 14 Mohammed Ahmed S/o Md. Hussain R/o Siddapur village, yadagirigutta Mandal

15. Kethoju yakaiah S/o Balaiah H No. 9-7711, pochannapera Village, Bachannapeta Mandal. Warangat 6i.t,l.t i:l i I I i ! I I I I I I -____-rrl I1" -3

6. G. Saraswathi W/o Nagendar Rro H.No. l2_44, Nalla pocharnmaWada Yadgir pally village, yadagirigurta Naandal

17. M. Thirupathaiah S/o Narsimha R/o Namle Village, Rajapet Mandat. (Died LRs 50 to 54) r.18. N. Mallaiah S/o Narsiraha , R/o.H.No 9_49 pocharurapet .. Bachannapet Mandal. wuinrgui Di#i.t r 19. M. pochaiah S/o peddha Village, Ramulu R/o Namele Villagc, Rajannaper Mandal. Nalgonda District. .:.'' 'i.i.' 20 Md._Chanda pasha S/o Dastagir R/o HG No 2_20_88/t. Chilk; Nagar Viltage. Uppal. Rarrga Rcddy Drsrnct. 2 1. R.. Praveen Kurnar S/o Laxman ' R/o H.No. 8_ 1 - 27 5, Shaikpet Village, Golconda post.

22. Ci Narsing S/o C. pochaiah Rzo H No.8_t _105/8, Shaikpet Viitage, Golconda post.

23. Md._Abdul Gaffar S/o Md. Sira.Juddin R/o H.No2-2_6 47/201/|. nrgi, ;1,b..r., C.E. Colony. Hyderabad. 2o 5; ty*ea Bai Wo K. Rarnakrishana ,, R/o H.No.38_ t6/S/38, Vir"bh;N;;;.' , Sainik puri, Hyderabad, ,l 25.

9. Ramchander S/o c. Vittal R/o H.No. I 1 _3_664/ I 2}sanjeevapuram. Parsi gutta, Secunderabad.

26. V Suresh S/o V.V. Ramana IVo H.No 2g/1, lndirar,agar, Secunderabad

27. C Srinivas S/o Shivair Ruo H No. I2_l4 406, Lalaper, {a=:__ =' -.-- Hl . ]CD.Su-dharanr ILal(-t.,.h , . h ^

28. K, Padmavathi Wo K. Baal Raj k R/o H.No.2-3-6 4 I I I 14, I aiswal Gardens, Plot No.21, S.No. 1 1 5, yadagiripally.

29. P. YanrthaW /o Prathap Praveen Kumar R/oH.No,3 -4-58l4, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

30. K. Padmavathi Wo K. Bal Raj R/o H.No.2-3-6 4/ 1 / 14, Jaiswal Gardcns Amberpet Hyderabad.

31. P. Vanitha Wo Prathap Praveen Kumar R/o I{.No. 3-4-58/4, Lingampally Kachiguda Hyderaqbad.

32. K. Anuradha Bai Wo K. Rarnakrishna R/o H.No.38- 1615/38, Vinabha Nagar, Sainik Puri, I-Iyderabad. 33 D. Kondal Reddy S/o Vinal Reddy R/o Saidapur village, yadagirigutta.

34. D, Sudharani D/o Kondal Reddy R/o H No. 2-241103/6, I-axminarayana Colony, IDA Uppat Ranga Reddy. 35 P P Brahrnachary S/o Venkatesharn Chary R/o Kompally Village, eutbullapur Mandal.

36. Vanarasi Anlaiah S/o peddha Mallaiah R/o H.No,9-40, pochannapet village, Bachannapet Mandal, Warangal District.

37. Vanarasi Kanakaiah Sio peddha Mallaiah R/o II No,9-40, Pochannapet village, Bachannapet Mandal,Warangal District.

38. B. Panduralu S/o B. Sattaiah R/o I{ No.12-1-489/4. Lalapet, Secunderabad.

39. B. Sunitha Wo Panduraju R/o H No 12-l-48914, Lalapet, Sccunderabad 500017. t I t I I I I t I I ! t t : : : I I I ! I {i a , ,i \ i i ? ! E f { i I I I 5 I I Ti I I / I E it;1. 'a 5

40. CH. Naryan Reddy S/o Mailareddy R/o H.No. 7-15144 New Ragavendra Nagar, Nacharam, SeCunderabad.

41. MD Hazgher S/o MD. Khaisar R/o H.No. 12-20 1/1 Nallapochama Wada, Yadgiripally (v.). yadagiriguna Mandal.

42. Y . Ellaiah S/o China Narsimha R /o Pochannapet village, Bachannapet Mandal,Warangal District.

43. P. Ganeshwar S/o Rarnulu R/o H.No l}-l -21 lI I I Seetarambagh, Old Mallepaily, Ilyderabad.

44. V. Suresh S/o V.V. Ramana Wo Ind iranagar, Secunderabad

45. Thumu Srikanth S/o Komeli R /o H.No.3-4-58/A, Rajendarnagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal, R.R. District,

46. Bhavani Kranthi Kumar R/o H.No 6-4, Plot No.36/Part, Sy.No.1 18, Yadagirigutta Vitlage & Mandal, Nalgonda District

47. K. N. R. Vasantha Wo Narasirnha Raju R/o Plot.No 25, Sy.No.118, yadagiripally Village

48. K. Arvind Raj S/o Late K. Gopal R/o H No. 15-5-741, Ashok Bazar, A lzalgunj, I{yderabad. 49 P Neeraja Wo Subhash Chandra Plot.No. 15, Sy.No 1 I 8, Plot.No I 5, Yadagiripally,Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana. 50 Mothe Pochamma Wo Late. M. Thirupathi R/o. H.No.5-47110, Namli Village, Rajapet Mandal, YadadriBhuvanagiri District 51 52 t53 w 54 Mothe \Iadagiri S/o Late M Thirupalhi' Wo lI.No.5-47l10, Namli village' ii"dp" Mandal,YadadriBhuvanagiri District Mothe Samriakka D/o Late M Thrrupathi R/o I{.No.5-47l10, Namli viilage' iiuiup"t fufu"a"l,YadadriBhuvanagiri District' Mthe Karrakaiah S/o Late M Thirupathi' R/o H.No.5-47110, Namli viliage' n"l Mothe Marsaiah S/o Late M Thirupathi' R/o H No.5-47110, Namli vi11age, irr:rp", Mandal,YadadriBhuvanagiri District rcl Nos 50 to 54 are added as legal reprcsentatives oIdeceascd Cl'No lT as '"p.t OtA"* rn I S.No 504/2022 dated: lq-10-202: ) Vf *aal,YadadriBhuvallagiri District "p", Respondeuts /Claimants f A NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circutlrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in L.A.O,P. No.121120-19 Dt.16lOBl2023 passed by the Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 54 : SRI A.KESHA'r'A REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT .t --. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.O1 of 2o24 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tir,.tmala Deyi Dada) This appeal, under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (for short 'the Act, 2013') is preferred by the Land Acquisil-ion Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, aggrieved by the award dated 16 .O8.2O23 passed in L.A.O.P.No. 121 of 2OI9 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authorit5, at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Authority.

3. The case before the Authority was that a requisition was sent by the VC & CEO, YTDA for acquisition of lands situated at Yadagiripally village for providing facilities to the pilgrims of Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple at Yadagirigutta and surrounding areas and on sttch requisition, preliminary notification was issueci under Section 1 1 ( 1) of the Act, 20 13 on \ 2 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.01 2024

21.O9.2016. On completion of due procelure, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer (LAO) has passed the awar,1 on 29.ll.2OIT awarding Rs.14,00,O00/- per acre for the lands in survey Nos.92 and 115 and Rs.12O0/- per Sq.yard for the lands in survey No.118. Aggrieved by the said award, on an aplrlication made by the claimants, it was referred under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 for enhancement of compensation and the same rvas taken on file as LAOP No.121 of 2019.

4. Based on the averments, the Authority ha s framed the following points for consideration: "1) Whether Claimants 1 to 17 (died per LRs Cl Nos.so to 54), 18 to 44 arc entitled for marked value on Square 1.ard basis for the acquired plots in Sy.Nos.92 and 115? lf so, rvhat is the quantum? 2) Whether Claimants 45 to 49 are e ntitled for eohancement of compensation amount awarded for the acquired plots in Sy.No- I 18? lf so, what is the quantum?"

5. Before the Authority, the claimants got exarnirLed pWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf ol th.e respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to ElS were marked,

6. Considering the evidence on record, tht: t\uthority has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,369/- per squilre yard from that of Rs.14,O0,0OO/- per acre with regard to clairnant Nos.l to 76, 77 (died per LRs 50 to 54), 18 to 44 and q.ith regard to lll.;. 3 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No.01 2024 claimant Nos.45 to 49 the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,673/- per square yard from that of Rs. 1,2O0/- per square yard, apart from the other statutory benehts. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition O fl'icer.

7. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri A.Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Lhe appellant has submitted that the award of the Authority is against the settled principles of law and that it had erred in enhancing the compensation. He further contended that it is an unapproved layout and thus, the Authority has passed its award on a hypothesis but not on the facts. It is his contention that the land under acquisition is a fallow land and is far away from habitation and thus, it would not fetch any higher amounts than what is awarded by the LAO. He further submitted that the LAO has passed a very reasoned order and therefore, it ought to have been confirmed by the Authority. He further submitted that the claimants failed to produce zlny documentary evidence to prove the prevailing market value inspite of which the Authority has enhanced the compensation. It is further contended that the 4 AKS,] & ETD,J LAAS No.01 2024 authority has erroneously awarded l\ok escalation from 01.04.2013 to 01.04.2016 and arrived at enhancement. He further contended that the land under acquisition was not converted into non-agricultural land and thus, the Authority ought not to have enhanced any compensatiorr. Therefore, he submitted that an exorbitant amount is awarded bv the Authorily and hence, has prayed to set aside the same b1- allowing this appeal.

9. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitled that the Authority has considered all the legal principles and has rightly enhanced the compt:nsation and he, therefore, prayed to uphold the award of the Authority.

10. Considering the above rival contentions, tris Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the Award of the Authoritv reeds anv interference?

3. To what relieL:

11. POINT NO.1: a) The contention of the learned Governmen[ F,leader is that the Authority has enhanced the compensation without any basis. /,/ ./,, 5 A(S,J & ETD,] LAAS No.o1 2024 b) A perusal of the award reveals that the Presiding Officer of the Authority has discussed about the parameters to be considered in determining the market va,lue of the land that is acquired while awarding compensation under Section 26 of the Act,20 13. c) It is pertinent to refer to Section 26 of tine Act, 2013 in this regard: "26. Delcrmrnation of markel value of land by Collector. (l) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and dctcr-mrning the market value of rhe land, namelv:- (a) the markct value, if any, spccificd in the Indian SLamp Act, 1899 12 ot 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreemcnLs to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest villaBe or nearest vicinity arca; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for privaLe companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date lor determination of market valuc shall be [hc dale on which the notilication has bccn issued under section I I. Explanation 1:-The average sale pricc relerred to in clause (b) shall be determincd taking into account Lhe sale deeds or thc agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicrnity area during immediately preceding threc years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made. Explanation 2.-For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account. Explanation 3.-While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation I or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. Explanation 4.-While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation I or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposcs of calculating market value. \ \ 6 AKs,J & ETD,I LAAS No.01 2024 (21 The market value calculated as per sub-secron (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specihed in the First Schedule. (3) Wherc the market value under sub section (1) or. sub section (2) cannot bc determined lor the reason that- (a) the land is siLuated in such area whcre the trensactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the tir:te trcing in forcc in that area: or (b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as nentioned in clausc (a) of sub section (1) for similar larid a.e not ilvailable for the immediatcll. preccding thrce years; or (c) the market valuc has not been specifted u.rde. thc Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authorit\,, the State Government concerned shalt specify the fl.o. price or minimum price per unit area of the said land bastd on the prjce calculatcd in the manner specihed rn sub section (l) i:r respect of similar types oI land situated in the immediate adjoinrng al-(.as: Providcd thar in a casc u'here the Requiring Boly offers its shares to the ou,ners of the lands (lvhosc lands have been a:quired) as a pa.t compensation, for acqutsition of land, such shares in tro case shall cxceed twcnh-llve per cent, of the value so calculated urrder sub section (1) or sub section (2) or sub section (3) as the case may bc: Providcd furthcr that the Requiring Body slall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has becn acqrrlred) to take its shares, the value of which is dcductible in the value of the land calculated under sub section {1): Providcd also Lhat the Collector shall, before initiltion of any land acquisition procccdings in any area, take all ne(cssary stcps to revise and updatc the markct value of the land on t:1e basis of the prevalent markct rate 1n thaL area: Providcd also that the appropriate Govemmerlt r;hall ensure thal the markel value determined for acquisition of any anrl or propert], of an educational ins[itutton cstabhshed and administerr:d L,y a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right Lo cstablish and administer educational instituticns of their choice.' d) The Presiding Officer has discussed at leng-h with regard to the lrrst parameter and has held that pWs 1 and 2 have failed to file any documents. The Land Acquisition Ofhcer hzrs hled trx.B5. It is the letter addressed by the Sub-Registrar, yadagirigutta to the Tahsildar, Yadagirigutta furnishing basic market values of the lands in survey Nos. 1 15 and 1 18 of yadagiripally village. The 7 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.01 2024 land that was acquired in this case is under survey Nos.92, 115 and 1i8. e) A perusal of Ex.BS reveals that the value of the land per square yard is Rs.1,10O/- for the house plots in both the survey numbers i.e. Sy.Nos.115 and 118. Thus, it is made out that there is no difference in the land values under both the survev numbers. 0 It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that they are the unapproved layouts in survey Nos.92 and 115. When trx.B5 discloses that there is no difference between the market vaiue of survey Nos.1 18 and 1 15, and Sy.No. 115 is found to be arr unapproved layout along with Sy.No.92, thus, it is revealed that there is no much difference between the market value of the approved layouts and unapproved layouts. However, some expenses would be incurred for regularizing the plots to bring them under approved layouts. Thus, the Authority has deducted Rs.200/- from the value shown in the basic value register i.e. deducted Rs.20O/- from Rs.1,10Ol- and arrived at Rs.9OO/- per square yard in survey Nos.92 and 115. It is further observed that the market values have not been revised ever since 2Ol3 tlll 2021, thus, applying the principle of escalation of lSo/o for every year, it is td9 by the Authority that the ciaimant Nos. 1 to 16, 17 (died 8 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No.o1 2024 Lar per LRs 5O to 54), 18 to 44 are entitled to corrrpensation of Rs. i369/- per square yard (15% of additior-r eve.-y year) for three years i.e. from 2013 tlll 2016, the date of notihcatiorr. g) Since the lands in survey No. 1 18 are fciun -1 to be approved layouts, it uras held that Rs. 1,100/- as revealerl lrom the basic value register is applied, to which 15%o escalar-ion is added for three years i.e. from O1.04.2013 to O1.04.2016, as there was no revision of market value from O1.04.2013, therctry he has arrived at a compensation of Rs.1673/ per square yard ,"vith regard to claimant Nos.45 to 49, as against the award pass,:d by the LAO. h) The Authority has relied upon the market valtre as disclosed by the documents produced by the LAO under Ex.BS which reveals the market value of the land in sun ey N os, 1 1 5 and 1 18. By taking the same and considering 15% escallti,rn, the award has been passed. i) In Neu Okhta Industrial Deaeloptnen.t Authoritg a. Harnand. Singhl , the Apex Court has observed that to determine fair and just compensation, the factors to be considered are divided into three categones "i) Characteristics oI the land, ii) Future potentiality of the land and iii) F actors de noting market 1 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 456 9 AKS,J & ETD,] LAAS No 01 2024 sentimcnt and while allowing the appeal in part, directed the appellant/NOIDA to grant compensation to the land owners, after considering the fact that the valuation of the Iand increased by 15% per annum j) ln G.M., Oil & Naturol Gas Corporation Ltd., n. Rannesh.bhai Jiuanbho.i PateP, the Apex Court held that a 15% annual growth in prices can be assumed for lands situated in urban areas. j) ln the present case also similar circumstances prevailed as there was no revision of market value from 20 13 till the year \ 2O2 1 , thus, it is held that the award of the Authority is found to be based on sound reasoning and cannot be found fault with. Hence, it is held that the claimant Nos.l to 16, 17 (died per LRs 50 to 54), 18 to 44 are entitled to enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,369/- per square yard from that of Rs.i4,00,O0O/- per acre and the claimant Nos.45 to 49 are entitled to enhancement of compcnsation to Rs. I ,673/ - per square yard from that of Rs.1,200/- per square yard. Point No. I is answered accordingly. ' lzooal rasccl+s 10 AKS,I & ETD,I LAAS No.01 2024 'I f,r:

12. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at prtint No.l, this Court holds that thc Award of the Authority dcr:s not need any intcrference.

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is drsmissed upl-r rlciing the an,ard dated 16.08.2023 passed in L.A.O.P.No.l2l of 2Ot9 lty the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlemt:n Alrtlrority at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if anv, shall :;tancl closcd //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ _--l ! secttott oFFrcER \ I To,

1. The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re-settlemen I AJthority. for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri A.Keshava Reddy ,Advocate (OPUC) S. L*g CCs to G.PJor Appeals, High Court for ihe Staie of l'elangana at Hyderabad[OUT] 4. Two CD Copies Ks/gh Nr' HIGH COURT DATED:0410712025 JUDGMENT L.A.A.S.No.1 of 2024 .-,1, , .. ..i .\ \' 1.. \, r., a \.+\3(\- 3 stP 2m .''lr -:- -- -- --::-' !: :/ Dismissing the Appeal Without costs. 1 g ?L