The High Court · 2025

. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.4 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble SriJustice L&tmi Naraydna Alishetty) Heard Sri Vijay Pissay, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants, and learned Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. 2 This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short'the Act') is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.08.2017 passed in LAOP.No.662 of 2012 on the hle of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').

3. ln brief, the facts of the case are that the premises bearing No.l9-1-227lllN7 belonging to claimant No.l and premises bearing No.19-2-227 I 1 I Al I I | 1, Bahadurpura Viltage and Mandal, Hyderabad District, belonging to claimant Nos.2 and 3, were acquired for the purpose of road widening and junction improvement at Bahadurpura junction; that Draft Notification 2 ttis,J&L)iA.J LAAS.No.4 oI20l8 under Ject on 4( 1 ) of the Acr was published in Hyderabacl District Gazett: on 21.11.2007; that Draft declaration rrnder tlection 6 of the Act,vas published in Hyderabad Dir;trict Gazette on

22.1I .'.'.007 ; and that after following the procedu.e prcs:ribed under the Ac anc after conducting enquiry, the Land .rtcquis.tion Officer passed Ar.r,rrrd N o. N 425 I 2007, d,ated 0 I . 03. 200 g, fixi n r1 the market value cf the acquired lands @ Rs.4,038/- per squrrre vard. 4. The appellants/claimants received t,re compensation ri- grantec b1 the Land Acquisition Officer under ltrotesl and sought referen ;e rurder Section l8 of the Act and the sarne * a:; ref-erred to the ccrn Lpcte:nt civil Court and numbered as LAC p.No.t j62 of 2012 on the: l iie ol the Reference Couft.

5. Bcltrrc the Reference Court, on behalf :l- the appellants/ claimarts. I,.Ws-l to 3 were examined and Exs.A_l t,t ,{_6 were marked Or behalf of the Relening Officer, R\\_l was examined and no ,locurrent was marked.

6. fhe Reference Cour1, on appreciation of ther oral and docume irtalv evidence placed on record, by the i mpu gned order enhanr:c d tlrt: market value of the acquired land frrrm Rs.4,03g/_ per . \= i, J AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No.4 ol2018 square yard to Rs.4,743l- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the appellants/claimants' Not being satisfied with the said enhancement made by the Reference Courl, the claimants filed the present appeal. 7 . Leamed counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court has failed to consider the fact that the acquired properties are situated in a prime locality and have got commercial value. He further contended that the Reference Court failed to take notice of the fact that for the adjacent acquired property, the GHMC has paid compensation of Rs. 15,000/- per square yard and erred in not enhancing the compensation based on Exs'A-3 and A-4 and therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to enhance the market value of the acquired land to Rs.15,000/- per square yard.

8. On the other hand, learned Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced before it from a proper perspective and fixed the market value of the acquired property @ Rs.4,7341- per square yard' He 4 ,IKS,J&L]f/1 J t.t1/S No 1oI2Al8 furthet crr rtended that the claimants failed to po int out any illegal t1' n the impugned order and therefore. this A ppeat, being devoid of'nrerits, is tiable to be dismissed.

9. [hi:t Court has given its eamest cor sideraLion to the submissions ntade by learned counsel appearing lor both the parlies and peruserl the entire materiai available on recor d, 10. --he r:laimants, in support of their claim firr enhancement of market va ue of the acquired lands, have got nrarked Exs.A_l to z\-6 on theil behalf.

11. Ex.r\-1 is the Special power of Attomey dated 16.05.2015 given by cleinrant No. I in favour ofher son, Exs.A_2, 1,_5 and 4._6 are the salr: deeds executed in favour of clairnant l.los. I to 3- The said documents show the ou.nership of the respec:tiveli, claiman ls c,r,er. the acquired properties and they are no rvay helpful for dete 'n-riring the market value of the acquired p,roper.t ies. 12. L :alt,:d counsel for the claimants sought to h:avily rely upon E <s.A.3 and A-4, which is the information given by the Assistart City planner, Circle_V, GHMC. 7 5 AKS.J&LA'A,-J L,4AS.Na 4 of 2018

13. A perusal of Exs.A-3 and A-4 discloses that compensatron @ Rs.15,000/- per square yard was ordered to be paid to the owner towar<Is the land value of the affected poftion of property' i'e'' premises bearing No.l9-2-227lllN2' The subject propefty therein is also acquired for the same purpose as that of the subject lands in question, i.e., for widening and improvement of Bahadurpura j unction.

14. In fact, a thorough scrutiny ofthe Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer discloses that in respect of an extent of 37'58 square yards of land in the property bearing premises No.19-l-22711lA belonging to one G'Kannaya Lal, the market value of land was fixed @ Rs.4,038/- per square yard and the structural value was fixed as Rs.13,91 ,2161-'

15. The instructions issued by respondent, i'e', Special Grade Deputy Collector, (LA), GHMC, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.A/42512007, are placed on record' The said instructions coupled with Exs.A-3 and A-4, dated 18'06'2011, go to show that as advance possession of the land was given by Kannaya Lal and the said person surrendered his land under private negotiations 6 .il:\ !& t L,1 J , t.1S \a 4 oJ20l8 under Sectiol 146 of the GHMC Act, at his requerir. the ,:heque for the lan,l val-r: u,as cancelled and sanction was appr,:x,.ed for a sum ofRs.l8 00.C00/- rowards 120 square yards of land @ Rs.15.000/_ per squar e 1 ard. The said document is not disputed b), t re leamed Governr ent Pleader for Appeals. Fufther, it is Jrerlincrrt to note that the subjoct acquired properlies and the properv covc,red under Exs.A--l anC A-4 are in near vicinity and were rcqnirt:cl lor the same prrrDose i.e., widening of Bahadurpura junct on, rh3relore, it can be s rfeJl held that both the said propertics fctch the same market vr lue.

16. Howe',,,:r. this Courl cannot lose sight of the lacl that Award was pass ed 11 the Land Acquisition Offlcer. on 0I .03.200g, whereas llxs r\-3 and A-4 are dated 18.06.2011, i.e.. Ilx:i.A_3 and A-4 are i: suecl nearly three years after passing ol tL e Arvl.rd b1, the Land Ac,luis,ition Officer. l-he value of the prc pertr. being in commerci rl locality of Hyderabad, dcfinitel,v t wor.rld have increased in tfe said three years and as such, the v:.1,e rc'lected in Exs.A-3 anc A-4, dared 18.06.2011, cannot bc raiien into consideral ion in toto for fixing the market value ,rf the acquired I I I i t i i 7 AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS No.4 oI20l8 land. In the intenegnum period ofnearly three years from the date of passing of Award and the date of Exs'A-3 and A-4, the market value of the land would have dehnitely been increased'/escalated in view of rapid urbanization and as such, as on the date of passing of Award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the market value of the acquired land would be definitety less than the value reflected in Exs.A-3 and A-4. In such a case, this Court has to calculate as to what extent the claimants are entitled to enhancement of the market value of the acquired land basing on Exs'A-3 and A-4' 17. The issue as regards considering the escalation/increase of market value of the lands was elaborately dealt with and analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager' ONGC Ltd Vs, Rameshbhai livanbhai Patel antl anothert , wherein at paras 13 and 14 of the judgrnent it was observed as under:- " 13. Primarily, the increase in Land prices depends on four factors situation of the land, nature of development in surrouncling area, availability of land for development in the area, ancl the demand for land in the area' In rurol areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinily, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps' On the ' (2008) l4 scc 745 ]: : , rj- 8 ,IKS,J&LNI,J 1,1.45.No.1 of20t8 other hand, in urban or semi_urban aret s. y,lu,re the de relopment is faster, where the demancl.[o, land is high ctntttrhere there is construction activity all Lu.ottrl, the es.:tlotion in market price is al a much hiqher riie, as contpctred to rural areas. In some pockels in bi.q ci.ties, due to rapid development and high demantl fctr lcrrlcl, the esctrkttions in prices have touched even 30,/o to 5 r)%o or mcre per year, during the nineties.

14. On the other extreme, in remolc rttral areas v'lte,e there was no chance of any develoltmen; und hattlly ony buyers, the prices stagnated fot. I eurs o,,. ro.rc ma"3irrully at a nominal rate of l%o or 2%o pcr at.,num. The r e is lhus a signifcant clifference in. ,n.L,rets.:.y in mdrttet value of lands in urban/semi_urba r, ,trea; antl incrcases in markel vaLue of lands in the rural c;reos. Ther"-fore if the increase in market value in ,tbant."emi_ 'trba'1 oreas is about 10,% to t5oi per tt;nrut.t tlte :on esponding increa.ges in rural areas woull rtl lte st bt: mly around half of it, that is about 5oZ ftt 7.5% pet. ,mn.tn. This rule of thumb refers lo the gene.al lretd in the nineties, to be adoptetl in the absence qt L:lear and t pec 1lc evidence relating lo increase in pt.i:.e.s. fi trcre ther,: are special reasons for applying a higher ru;e oJ. i tcntose, or any specific evidence relating to tJrc ru tual i tcrt'use in prices, then the increase lo be apl,,liecl tuouk) aetrteud upon the same. " I L 9 AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS No 4 oI20l8

18. Thus, in the above judgment, the Hon'ble Suprerne Courl observed that in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices, increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas can be considered about 10% fo l5o/o per annum'

19. In the peculiar facts of the case, i'e', the fact that the subject acquired land and the land covered under Exs'A-3 and A-4 are situated in the same locality and both were acquired for the same pubiic purpose, this Courl is of the considered opinion that it is not appropriate to show discrimination in payment of compensation for the said lands, only on the ground that the owner of the land covered under Exs.A-3 and A-4 surrendered the land and the price was fixed in Private negotiations. {

20. 'Iherefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of increase of market value as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case (cited supra) can be applied to the instant case in a reverse mode and thereby, the claimants are entitled to fixation of the market value of the acquired land by decreasing l25oh per annum for each year for a period three years, on Rs.15,000/- per square yard' which works 1t) lli.: -/ & Lt\/1 .l t.A.1S \to 1 af 2A t3 out to Rs.1C,050/- per square yard. The Referenc: Court has ened in deduc ting 25% ofRs.l 5,000/- for each ycar anc therel)y. erred in fixing tlre nrarket value of the acquired land (r) Rs.i.,7,13/_ per square ) arc ard as such, the impugned order is unsLrs._airable in law au,l s lizble to be set aside. 2I. l.cc,rrdingly, this Appeal is allowed in p art. ser.ting aside the impt gni:,1 order and the market value of the acqu ir ed lancl is enhance< frrrm Rs.4,743l- per square yard to Rs.10.050i_ per squale y.i rd.

22. A s a ;equel, Miscellaneous petitions pend ng, i1. an1.. shall stand clo ;ed No oosts. //TRUE COPY// SdI. K. SIIINIVASA RAO JOINIT REGISTRAR 3ec'rroru oFFrcER The XXIV Additicnat Chief Judge, City Civit Courts, Hydr if any) :rabad (with records To, ? 9n" CC to iri \/r1ay pissay, Advocate IOpUCt i. i#l 33?[r""i for Appeats, Hish colrr for tlhe state o,reransana. [oUr] Plp/PR :"F!li.,'*t".';-rt t" ..1;: * d: HIGH COUI1T DATED:21 102t2025

4.' JUDGMEN-I.+DEGREE LAAS.No.4 of 2018 (2 drafts) ( :) o L) 4',..t e rri l! o [1 \PR u6 7- () *i' \i \i C ; r, . -r'--\J PARTLY AI..LOWING THE APPEAL. WITHOUT COSTS. I /-/t g/- /3 /0 i 1 J I I i I \i ;.\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO : 4 0F 2018 Between:

1. Smt.G.Rukmini bai, WO.G.Balram, Occ-Housewife' R/O'H'NO 13-3-733/A' Jiyaguda, HYderabad

2. K.Savitri, WO.K.Janardhan Reddy, aged about-55 years' Occ-Housewife' R/O.H.NO.B-13-T4,RaghavendraColony,Opp-NPASivarampally' RajendranSgar Colony, R R. District

3. K.Shyamala, WO.K.Damodhar Reddy, aged aboulS4years' Occ-Housewife' R/O.H.NO.8-13-74, Raghavendra Colony, Opp-NPA Sivarampally' Rajendranagar Colony, R.R.District ...APPELLANTS AND The Special Deputy Collector LA, GHMC, Hyderabad' The Land Acquisition Officer ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 54 of L'A Act of '1894 against the order and decree dated 28.08.2017 passedinLAOPNo662 of 2012 on thefile of the court of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the JudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandthematerialpapersintheappeal anduponhearingtheargumentsofSriVijayPissay, Advocate for the Appellants and of G P for Appeals' for the Respondent' -| . :.-,- ,/ This Court doth C rder and Decree as follows '1 . That the Lrrnd Acquisition Appeal Suit be and hereby is allowed in part, setting aside the impugned order and the market value o1 the acquired land is enhance,l frorn Rs.4,743l- per square yard to Rs.10, )501 per square yard;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOIIIT REGISTRAR Secrroru oFFtcER

1. The XXI\/rrdd,tonal Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs trr G F'. for Appeals, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. Two CD i}rpies To PLP/PR ., (2 drafts) H!GH COUIRT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE LAAS.No.4 of 2018 PARTLY AI.LOWING THE APPEAL. WITHOUT COSTS. p / ,,5 <<. ,/t ./t {