The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Cross Objectors : SRI S. RAVI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.326 OF 2OO3 AND COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Smf. Justrbe Tirumala Devi Eada) This is an appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') is filed by the appellant - Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (LA) lndustries, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.04.2003 passed in O.P.No.199 of 1992 by the learned First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'). X-Objections are filed by the clairnants.

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

3. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition made by Defence Estate Officer, the land to an extent of Ac.03.21 guntas situated in T.S.Nos.1/3 and 114, Block G, Ward No.276, in old Sy.No.4711,4712,4713,48 to 52 and 53/1 of Kanchanbagh village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad was acquired, for the purpose of expansion of Defence Research Development Laboratory (DRDL). 2 AKS.J & ETD,J The draft notification under Section a(1) of the Act was issued and the same was published in the gazette on 16.03.1990. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has passed an award dated 06.02.1993 and fixed the value @ Rs.153/_ per square yard. Aggrieved by the said award, ttre claimants have made an application and the same was refened under section 1g of the Act to the Court of First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. The contention of the claimants is that the acquired lands are in well developed area and that they claimed Rs.1500/_ per square yard during the award enquiry, but the LAO has determined a meager value and that the acquired land is already a developed area with pucca compound wall together with buildings, outhouses etc., and that the acquired land was surrounded by several well developed colonies like Santhosh Nagar Colony, Rakshapuram Co_ operative Housing Colony, Hafeez Baba Nagar Colony and that they have developed the property and used it for running industries and that it has got all the modern amenities like electricity, school, transport facilities etc., They further contended that the LAo failed to award the conrpensation for the structure and the welr as per the estimates. 3 AKS,J & ETD,J

5. The Reference Court has framed the following points for consideration "1. Whether the market value fixed by IAO for the acquired land is inadequate and in sufflrcient and liable to be enhanced? lf so, what is the real market value as on the date of 4(1) notification?

2. Whether the market value determined by the LAO for structures and compensation awarded thereon is in adequate, insufficient and liable to be enhanced? lf so, what would be the reasonable market value? 3 Whether the double deduction made by LAO is justified and permissible under law?

4. To what relief?"

6. ln support of their claim, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. The respondent got examined DW1 and Exs.B1 to 83 were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.53B/- per square yard, apart from the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate General for the LAO and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the c{aimants.

8. The learned Advocate General has argued that the LAO has passed a very reasonable order by considering the sales statistics 4 AK'J & ETD,J available in the area and has taken the highest sales statistics into consideration while awarding compensation and since the acquired land was for DRDL, 1/3d deduction was made by the LAO, which is just and proper. The reference Court ened in enhancing the compensation from Rs.153/- per square yard to Rs.S3g/- per square yard for the lands acquired. He further argued that the reference Court grossly erred in arriving at the market value of the lands acquired at Rs.672l- per square yard and after deducting 2Oo/o towards development charges awarding at Rs.53g/- per square yard. Thus, the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation, he therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the reference Court.

9. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has submitted that the acquired land is in fact an urbanized area with all the amenities and that their lands would fetch more value than that awarded by the reference Court and hence, prayed for further enhancement.

10. Considering the above submissions, the grounds raised in the appeal and the X-objections of the claimants, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 5 AKS,J & ETD,J ?t I ,-l

1. Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

11. POINT NO.1 a) The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the reference Court has committed an error. in enhancing the compensation and thus, prayed to set aside the same, while the contention of the claimants is that their lands fetch a.higher value. b) PW1 in his evidence has deposed that their lands fetch high value and has further relied upon Ex.AS, which is the paper publication issued by the Government wherein the A.P. Housing Board has fixed a minimum upset price for the plots to be at Rs.600/- per square yard. The claimants have further relied upon Exs.A1 and A2, the areas under the said sale deeds are located on the sub-road and behind the DRDL, whereas the acquired land is on the main road abutting DRDL. lt is the contention of PW1 that the acquired land is located on c) the 150 feet main road leading from Santhosh Nagar to Chandrayangutta, which connects NH-7. i 5 AKS,J & ETD,J d) A perusal ofthe award passed by the LAO reveals that he has observed that the Village Kanchanbagh, where the present acquisition is made is within the rimits of Hyderabad Municipality and is developed with alr civic amenities such as electricity, bus facilities and several houses have come up around the rands and that the lands of sunounding viilages and that armost a[ the rands were sord on yardage basis and that the sales on acreage basis is not available. Thus, he felt it necessary to depend on the sales on yardage basis to assess the market varue. He further discussed in the award that the lands under acquisition are located on the south side beyond the road connecting Chandrayangutta and Santoshnagar and that the rands rocated around the acquired lands on southern side were sold along with the houses and that the sales are not helpful to assess the market varue for the rands under acquisition. Therefore, he has taken into consideration the sales statistics pertaining to the lands falling on the northern side of the acquired lands. The LAO has collected 14 sales statistics and a piece of land admeasuring Ac.03-21 guntas which is arso acquired for the same purpose, subsequenfly in the said award the LAO has collected 106 sales transactions and relied on Sl.Nos. 12 and 13 of the sales transactions and the said sale deed is marked as Ex.83. !2. !n-@?!l! " /-. 7 AKS,J & ETD,J e) A perusal of Ex.83 reveals that the land is sold at Rs.193/- per square yard. The sale in respect of plot No.149 in Sy.No.72 mentioned at Sl.No.104 of the award is marked as Ex.B1 and the value of the land is Rs.193/- per square yard. The IAO has chosen the plots Iying on the northern side of the main road leading from Santhosh Nagar Colony to Chandrayangutta while fixing the market value of the acquired land, when the acquired land is lying on the southern side of the main road and when a number of sale transactions are available on the southern side, it was not proper on part of the LAO in relying on the said statistics. lt is clear from the observation made by the LAO in his award that the land is well developed with all the civic amenities and also that it is abutting the DRDL. 0 lt is admitted by DW1 that sub-division of the acquired land was duly attested by the deputy director of survey and land records and that the acquired lands are mentioned in the said plan, it is filed under Ex.B2 and he has clearly stated that the 150 feet wide road leading from Chandrayangutta to Santoshnagar separates the acquired land and DRDL staff quarters. He further admitted in the cross examination that the acquired land is abutting the houses on both southern and northern side and that the major factory i.e 8 AKS,J & ETD,J Hyderabad Plastic lndian Wire and Allied products and also M/s.Hindustan Chemicals were in existence much prior to the acquisition of land and that the land acquired is for the purpose of DRDL and that the other defense raboratories i.e. BDL and MTDHANT are abufting DRDL. S) PWs 2 and 3 are the retired officials of DRDL. pW3 is the retired Senior Technical Assistant and pW2 is the retired Deputy Director. They were also examined at length and it is elicited from them that the land is adjacent to the compound wail of DRDL and thus, it is acquired for expansion of DRDL. Further, pW3 has asserted that he purchased a plot in Rakshapuram colony in the year 1980 @ Rs.300/- per square yard. h) PW4 is a Chartered Engineer and approved valuer. lt is elicited from him that he inspected the acquired lands in TS No.1/3 and Ya, Ward No.276, Block G, Kanchabagh, Hyderabad on 01.06.1992 and prepared his report under Exs.A6 to AB. He valued the structures basing on Government rates, allowing appropriate depreciation. He evaluated the chemical lab struclures situated at TS No.1/4 under Ex.A7. He also estimated the vatue of the well situated at TS No.1/3 and gave a cogent reasoning under Ex.Ag. ?SFE@; ./ t:,:".\'aj _f"f t :i{' t.. .f...' ",|,; 9 AKS,J & ETD,J Though PW4 was cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. i) Thus, by considering the evidence of pws 1 to 4 and also the admissions made by DW1 it is elicited that the tand is in a well developed area. i) The claimants have filed Exs.Al to A14, out of the said exhibits filed by the claimants, the sales covered under Exs.A3, 44, A11 and A12 are adjacent to the acquired land, which are situated on the southern side of the road leading from santoshnagar to chandrayangutta and thus, the reference court has relied upon the said sales statistics and has taken an average of the sarne. Further, the paper publication by the Government under Ex.AS atso is an authenticated document. The sale deed under Ex.A3 reflects the sale price at Rs.300/- per square yard rhe paper publication under Ex.AS reveals the price as Rs.600/- per square yard and Ex.A4 reveals as Rs.335/- per square yard, Ex.A11 reveals as Rs.5s6/- per square yard and Ex.A12 reveals as Rs.g64. Thus, by taking an average of all these sale prices, we get Rs.673/- per square yard and to the said amount a deduction of 1/3'd has been fottowed. usfually in case of house sites 1/3'd deduction is followed, as perthe L \ 10 AXs,J & ETD,J decision in Special Land Acquisition Otficer v. W Velul and the same was adopted by the LAO but in the present case, all the civic amenities were already available and it is the land situated in a very developed area around which the housing coronies are situated and the compound wall of DRDL is abutting the acquired land. k) ln Bhagwathula Samanna v. LAO2, the Apex Court has held that the deduction in land value is not warranted when it is arready developed and has roads, drainage, electricity, communication in its vicinity. l) ln S.Shankaraiah v. Land Acquisition Officel , the Apex court has held that since the entire land is to be mined and the coal is to be excavated, there is no wastage of land on account of any developmental activities such as roads, sewage lines, parks etc., tn that view of the matter, there is no development required and therefore, 'll3'd deduction is not warranted at all. m) By following the said principle, it was held that 1i3.d deduction need not be made. However, in Kasturi y. Stafe of Haryanaa, the Apex Court has held that in order to convert the land into plots for '(rgs6) z scc s38 'etR r99z sac zzga I 2022 Livelaw (sc) 9,34 ' arn zoo: sc zoz ry ry*.ry- 11 AKS,J & ETD,J the purpose of construction of resadentaal and commercial building, certain area has to be earmarked for creating layouts and by considering all the aspects of developed area and taking note of the potentiality of the land 20% of deduction was adopted in the said case. Applying the said principle, the trial Court has allowed 2oo/o deduction towards developmental charges as against the standard deduction of 1/3d. By following the said principle, out of Rs.672l- 20o/ois deducted and Rs.538/- per square yard has been awarded. n) Thus, it is opined that the reference Court considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and also DW1 and the sales statistics available on record, sale deeds filed by the claimants, further the auction notice was also taken into consideration and arrived at a just and reasonable price. lt has also taken into consideration that since \ \ the land is already in a developed area,1/3'd deduction is not proper, however, 20% deduction is made in tune with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kasturi's case (cited supra). o) Therefore, it is opined that the reference Court has arrived at a decision based on sound reasoning and therefore, it is held that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is just and reasonable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. \- \ t) AKS,' & ETO.J 12_ OINT N 2 ln view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the reference court do not need any interference. 't3. INT .3: ln the result, the appeal and X_Objections (SR) No..1375 of 2OO4 are dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 10.04.2003 passed in o.p.No.199 of 1992 by the rearned First Senior Civil Judge, Gity Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SDI- K SRINIVASA RAO REGISTRAR \JOrNr ,,TRUE COPY" ECTION OFF To,

1. The First Senior CivilJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of - Telangana, tlYderabad. TOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. P S RAJASEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Once CC to Sri S. Ravi, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies N, HIGH COURT :29108t2025 L \ u o L) 11N[\?ffi .I ,r 4 *' JUDGMENT CCCA.No.326 of 2003F AND X-OBJECTIONS No .1375 OF 2004 DISMISSIG THE APPEAL AND CROSS OB.IECTIONS | ,.t i't'.,1 tJ ii \,\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AL'GUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUITAR SHAVILI D THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUTIALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: CIrf'ItB o SPL DY COLLECTOR CUM LAO, L.A. Officer, (lI) lndustries, Hyderabad AND

5. INDIAN WIRE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS, Rep.by its Managing Partner Satyanarayana Gupta

6. Hyderabad Plastics, rep. by its Managing Partner, Satyanarayana Gupta 7. Balli Shivanarayana and Company, rep. by its Managing Partner, Satyanarayana Gupta

8. Satyanarayana Gupta, S/o.Shivanarayana, Maior, R/o.3-5-141/3/8' Eden Bagh, Hyderabad. ti=FIII.lIIEilre Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned First senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad passed in O.P.No.199 of 1994, dt- 10-4-2003. X{)BJECTIOS No.'t375 OF 2OO4

1. INDIAN WIRE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS, Rep. by its Managing Partner Satyanarayana Gupta

2. Hyderabad Plastics, rep. by its Managing Partner, Satyanarayana Gupta 3. Balaji Shivanarayana and Company, rep. by its Managing Partner, Satyanarayana Gupta 4 Gupta, S/o.Shivanarayana, Major, R/o.3-5-1 41 /3/8, Eden bad. Gross Objectors/Respondents SPL DY COLLECTOR CUM LAO, L.A. Officer, (LA) lndustries, Hyderabad Respondents/Petitioner The Cross Objections filed under Order 42 of Rule 22 of C.P.C., questioning the Judgment and Decree of First Senior Civil Judge, Cig Civil Court, passed in O.P.No.199 of 1992, dt.10-04.2003. ORDER: This appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree ofthe Lo*'er Court and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of the Advocate General for the appellant and of Sri P. S. Rajaseklnr, Advocate for the Claimants. That this court doth Order and Decree as follorvs: l. That the appeal and Cross Objections (SR) No. 1375 of 2004 are be and hereby dismissed upholding the order and decree dt. 10.04.2003 passed in O.P.No.l99 of 1992 by the First Senior Civil Judge. City' Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. That therc shall be no order as to costs. SD'. K SRINIVASA RAO To, l. The First Senior Civil Judge, Citl Civil Court. Flyderabad. 2. Two CD copics. $-,)\- 6 C\ x ry. HIGH COURT DATED:2910812 25 0 DECREE CCCA.No.326 of 2003 X-OBJECTIONS No.l3ZS OF 2004 DISMISSIG THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTIONS 4 I ( n