The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Shyam S. Agrawal Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Appeals The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: I i THE HON,BLII SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY L.A.A.S.No.35 OF 2019 IUDGMENT: (Pr-.r Hon'blc Sri Justicc Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This appeal, under Section 54 of tl-re Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), is filed aggrieved by the order and decree, dated "14.06.2018, passed in L.A.O.P.No.2229 of 201L by the learned III Additional Chief ludge, City Civil Court, Hyclerabad (for short, 'the reference Court').

2. Heard Sri Shvam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned (lovernment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on a requisition made by tl-re Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, GHMC, Hyderabad, Iand admeasuring 67.88 Square Yards situated at Roacl No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, belonging to the appellant, was acquired for the purpose of widening of Road No.36, Jubilee Hi1ls. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on22.04.2008. The Land ) 2 AKS,J & LNA,J L.A.A.S.No.35 of 2019 Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed Award, dated 30.09.2008, fixing the market value for the subject land atRs.26,746/ - per Square Yard.

4. Not satisfied with the compensation awardecl by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.2229 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad

5. Before the reference Court, the appellant got himsclf examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

6. The reference Court, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, ulde impugned order and decree, dated

14.06.2018, enhanced the market value of the subject land to Rs.35,944/- per Square Yard, besides granting 30% soiatium on the enhanced market value and 12% additional amount from the date of notification till the date of Award along with interest. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the reference Court, the present I I I I 3 AKS,J & I,NA,J l-.A.A.S.No.35 of 2019 appeal is fiie<t by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant had contendecl that the land to an extent of 62.88 Square Yards situated at Road No.36 in Jubilee Hills area belonging to tl-re appellant was acquired for the purpose of widening of Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, by invoking urflency clause. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value for the subject Iand at F.s.26,146/- per Square Yard and the reft'rence Court has enhanced the market value to Rs.35,944/ - per Square Yard by relying on the Sale Deed referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that before tl-re reference Court, though the appellant has relied upon Ex.Pl-Sale Deed, dated 04.02.2008, which is prior to issuance of notification under Section (1) of the Act, and the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sagunthala (Dead) through Lrs. v. Special Tahsildar (L.A.) and othersl, Ahsanul Hoda v. State of t Civil Appeal Nos.624 3 , 6244-6248 of200l and 495-504 of2002 1 I 4 AKS,.I & LNA,J i, A A.S.No.35 of 2Ol9 Bihar2 and Sunder v. Union of India3, the reference Court has not even dealt with the same in the entire judgment.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that as per Ex.P1-Sale Deed, the value of the land in Road No.36 of ]ubilee Hills is Rs.92,000/- per Square Yard and that the Land Acquisition Officer has also not taken note of the said Ex.Pl, while passing the Award. The Land Acquisition Officer has referred only three sales alleged to have taken place in the vicinity of Road No.36. Neither the reference Court nor thc Land Acquisition Officcr has considered Ex.P1. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by setfing asicle the impugned order, dated L4.06.2018, for not relying on Ex.P1 and not awarding compensation in accordance with Ex.Pl and remit the matter to the reference Court for fresh consideration of the case of the appellant by duly taking into account Ex.P1 and the juclgments relied upon by the appellant.

10. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent had contended that since the reference Court has not 'c'ity , AIR Appeal No.531 1 of 2012 2001 Suprenre Court 3516 5 AKS,J & LNA,J l,.A.A-S.No.35 of 2019 dealt with Ex.P1, marked on behalf of the appellant, and the l judgments, which rvere relied upon by the appellant, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal to that effect. I \ t t lL. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel l'or the parties, is of the considered vielv that though { I the appellant has relied upon Ex.P1-Sale Deed, dated 04.02.2008, and the judgments c,f the Honourable Supreme Court in Sagunthala's case (supra 1), ,{.hsanul Hoda's case (supra 2) and Sunder's case (supra 3), the rt:ference Court has not even dealt with the same. Therefore, this (or-rrt is of the view that the present appeal can be disposed of bv s;etting aside the impugned order, dated 14.06.2018, ancl remitting tl're nratter to the reference Courf so as to enable the reference Court to adjudicate the matter afresh, by' taking into consideration Ex.P1 and also the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the appellant, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Since the acquisition is of the year 2008, the reference Court is requested to decjde the subject L.A.O.P., as expeditiously as possible. I '1.2. With the above observations/directions, the appeal is disposed 6 AKS,J & LNA,J L.A.A.S.No.35 of 2019 6; of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications,ll any, pending in this appeal shall stancl closed. 1 To, //TRUE COPY// "I Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I 1 The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' 2.TwoCCstoGPforAppeals,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana[OUT] 3. One CC to-Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies VH/gh w ) , HIGH COUR'I" DATED: 2310112025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.3S of 2019 l DISPOSING OF LAAS @ W