The High Court · 2025

JUDGMENT : (Per Ilon'bla Sri Justice Vakiti Ramah.i.t na Red$,1 This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Lanrl Acquisition Otficer aggricved by the order dated 08.08.2006 (her,insfts1 1,yi11 bc relcrrcd as the 'impugncd order') passed by the ltr ored Scnior Civil Judgc. Karimnagar (for short ,reference court,) ir O.p. No.g o12003, whcrcin the market value of the acquired lanC as fixed by thc [,and Acquisition Olficer was enlanced Aom Rs ti,000l per acre to Rs,40.000/- per acre.

2. For thc sakc of convcnience, hereinafter the prr ies u,ill bc ref-crrcd to its pcr their status belore the reference Cour. BRIEF FACTS:

3. 'fhe bricl'facts of the case are that the agricultir al lands ol' thc respondcnts/claimants situated in peddurupalll hamlct ol' Chcnicrla Village of Manakondur Mandal of Karimrrr ar l)istrict \ \!.\ 1 2 AKS J .t \:RI\R ,! - wcre acquired by the Govemment lor the purpose of providing house sil.cs to the weaker sections ol Peddurupally hamlct ol Chenjerla Village. Accordingly an award was passcd on

31.07. 1998 by fixing the market valuc of acquired lands at Rs.8,000/- per acre. Having dissatisfied with thc fixation of marker .;alue by the Land Acquisition O|lcer, the claimants fi led O.P.No.S of 2003 to enhance the market valuc ol' the acquircd lands from Rs.8,000/- per acre to Rs.2.00,000/- pcr acrc. 'l'hc I.and Acquisition Oflicer opposed the claim madc b1 thc claimants and prayed to dismiss the said claim. The claimants rclied upon thc oral evidenqe of PWs 1 and 2 and the documentarv evidcnce undcr Ex.Al. On the other hand, the Rcvenue Divisional Of licer. Karimnagar was examined as RWI and got markecl Bxs.BI to Bl0 on behalf of the respondent. On considering thc rival contcntions. the reference court enhanced the market valuc ol'acquircd lands to Rs-40,000/- pcr acrc from Rs.8.000/- pcr acrc as flxed by thc I_and Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by thc samc, the Land Acquisition Ofliccr prcl'erred the present Appeal to sct asidc the impugncd order and prua t'ppropriate orders. \KS.J & VRKI{. J I.AAS 666 20 t0

4. Heard both sides and perused the record

5. Admincdly. the claimant did not prefer an1 a I rcal against. thc impugned order secking further enhancement o I the markct value in respect ol'the acquired lands

6. Now the point lor detcrmination is: Whethcr there are any substantial grounds to int rlere u ith the ordcr dated 08.08.2006 passed by the l: Lrned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.P. No.8 ol'. 103i,

7. Point: Thc contention of the leamed courr cl lbr appellant is that thc ref-erencc court erred in fixing the r arkct value at the rate ol I{s.40,000/- per acre by relying on Ex.A I rnd that the acquired lands are agricultural lands and whereas Ex.,\ I is a small bit of land purcha-sed lor thc purposc ol house site. I is lurther contention o1' the learned counscl for the appellrr.r that thc reference courl ought to have seen that no comparab r salc decds wcre fllcd bv thc claimants to fix the .just compensatiol r

8. In ordcr to establish his claim. the claima I not only cxamined himsell as I'W I but also relied upon the ora :vide nce ol' '>t?"ii \ \l \.i -I .\ 4 AKSJ & VRKR. J LAAS 666 2010 pW2 and documentary evidence under Ex.Al. Ex.Al is the sale deed dated 27 .03.1995 pertaining to Chenjerla Village and PW2 is the vendee under Ex.Al. Notification under Section 4 (l) of the Act was issued in the year 1996. PW2 categorically deposed that the acquired lands are rich in fertitity and texture having high potcntialit,"- and suitable for raising fruit gardens. PW2 lurther deposed that acquired lands are very adjacent to village Abadi and the same are useful for house sites due to cxtension of village towards road where the acquired lands are situated. As per Ex.A I . pW2 purchased land to an extent of484 square yards equivalent to Ac.0.4 guntas in Sy.No.828 situated at Chenjcrla Village fiom onc llolla Jagannatha for a valid consideration of Rs.9,700/- which comes to Rs.97,000i- Per acre' g. lt is 1cl be seen that even though the lands were acquired on acrcagc basis the acquired lands were meant for providing house sites to the landless poor. Furthcr, the claimant relicd upon the decision oi the Honourable Supremc Court in Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of Indiar, wherein it was hcld that rate ... , i2OO3i :1 SCC:ral 5 \KS,] & VRKR, J LAAS 666 2010 fixed for smaller plots in the same vicinity can be basi; tbr flxation of rate for large area acquired. Thus, the above cont: Ltion raised by the appellant has already been raised before the rett:ence court and the same \.vas answered by the reference courl rgainst the appellant. Hence, the appellant cannot raise the same 11 ound again before this appellatc court.

10. Moreover, in Manilal Shamlbhai Patel (decease l) through his legal heirs and others .v OfTicer on Special l) ufy (Land Acquisition) and another2, the l{onourable Supr me Court observed as under: "lt is also a settled principle of low thct large areas do not attract the same price as is offered 1 r the small plots oJ' lands. Therefore, some antn nt of deduction is also normally permissible on acco mt of largeness in areo. Thus, deduction of ot leasl tl 6 has to be applied to determine the rate of compensatic t. " 1 l. In Ravinder Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana a rd others-t the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under: "The position of low is well settled tha,when large extenl of lands are acquired and d tl t sale exemplar, also for the lorge extent is availal:'e on record il would he safer lo rely on the same if thr y s7s I 2025 SCC Onlmc SC 63.+ 3 2023 SCC Onlme SC 147 6 AKS.J & VRKR, J LAAS 666 2010 comparable tronsaclions. However, as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh (supra) has clso held that the sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. Furlher, this Ccturt has reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropridte deduction being protided towards development charges. "

12. In view of the principle laid down in the above said two deoisions. it is amply clear that salc instances of smaller extents cannot be ignorcd and sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to deduction of at least 10o% towards development charges.

13. The sale exemplar relied upon by the claimant under Ex.Al discloses that an extent of Ac.0.4 guntas of land was purchased tbr a sale consideration ol Rs.9,700/-. However, the reference oourt did not cnlance the market value of acquired lands by sotely relying on Ex.Al. [n fact, the reference court did not consider the rate of land as mentioned in Ex.Al on the ground that PW2 did not spell out in his evidence about the distance between those lands and the acquired lands. In the impugned order the reference court observed that the acquired lands are situated in a commercial locality. 'fhough thc rcferdnce court did not solely rely upon 1 A(S.] & VRKR, J t-A.lS 666 1010 Ex.Al, the said document was made as a basis to fi: the market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre on the grt rurd that the acquired lands are also fit lor construction of houses md that the acquired lands are having some advantages in tern: of location from the Karimnagar Town as that of the land rl dcr Ex.A I . further, the reference court also specifically found rl at the Land Acquisition Officer did not give proper reasons for fir ng prices at the rate of Its.8,000/- per acre for the acquired lands rr, r taken into consideration various lacts and circumstances to fi< the market value particularly thc location of the acquired ands from Karimnagar T'own and also thc potentiality of the a,: uired lands apart from future expansion etc.

14. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagz.r who was examined as RWl deposed that the lands acquired rr, e dr) lands and that thc market value ol Rs.8,000i- per acre as 1 xed by the then Land Acquisition Olficcr is reasonable and corrt r L. Ex.B I is the copy of thc award and Exs.ll2 to 89 are the pahe ties for the years from 1980-81 to 1986-87 and Ex.Bl0 is the rilage sketch map of Chcnjerla Village. However, in the cross e tamination. 8 AI(S.J & \,RKR. J LAAS 666 20lO RWl admitted that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of 20 kms from Karimnagar town' No material is placed on behalf of the respondents to establish that the acquired tands will not fetch more market value than Rs'8'000/- per acre as fixed by the then Land Acquisition Officer' The claimant relied upon a decision of thc Honourable Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector and another Etc., v' Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others Etc''a wherein it was observ'ed that the possibitity of future expansion towards town etc', have to bc taken into consideration'

15. As per the contention of the claimant' there are rice mills' saw mills, oit mitls and educational institutions situated very near to the acquired lands' 'fhough the claimant had claimed for enhancementofacquiredlandsattherateofRs.2,00,000i-peracre. the ref.erencc courl obsen'ed in thc impugned order that there is no evidenceonrecordtoprovcthat-themarketvalueoftheacquired lands by the date of notiflcation was more than Rs'2'00'0001 per acre. The relerence cou( rightll' observed in the impugned order that the acquire<l lands are also fit for construction of houses and r AIR 1997 Supiefiic Cour[ 262i 9 AKS.] & VRKR. J LA\S 666 20i0 the Land Acquisition Officer had not given proper reasons lbr fixing the price at Rs.8,000/- per acre fol the acquired I rnds

16. In vicw of the above facts and circumstances. i e are of the considered view that the appellant failed to establist any tenable grounds so as to interfere with the well reasoned orrl r passcd by the reference court. Hence, this appeal is devoid ot merits and liable to be dismissed. 17 . Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ln thc c r lumstances, there shall bc no order as to cosls. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous application;. if any, in the appeal, shall stand closed. S D/. A.V.S. PRASAD t) :PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,'l The Senior Civil Judge, karimnagar. (with records, if any) Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS , High Court for the Starr of Telangana at 3. One CC to Mr. V. Manohar Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER Kam/gh o HIGH COURT DATED:04/0912025 1HE S (( J o c) 2 3 il'i{ ?t?[ t o * JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.666 of 2010 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL 6\ aD ph.c 6( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 34s0 ] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUS TICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Between: L.A.A.S.No: 666 OF 2010 The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar. AND ...AppELLANT/Respondent Velichala Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkataiah, 40 years, Occ_ Agriculture R/o. Porandla Village of Thimmapur Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENT/Petitioner Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act of .1894 aggrieved by the order dated 08-08-2006 in o.P,No.8 of 2003 on the fite of the court of the senior Civil Judge, karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellant and Mr. V. Manohar Rao, Advocate appeared for Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. Thal there shall be no order as to costs, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY R>iISTRAR SECT'ffioFFICER To, 1 2 k The Senior Civil Judge, karimnagar Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:0410912025 DECREE LAAS.No.666 of 2010 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL ,d- & I