The High Court · 2025

Vilasagaaram Srinivas, S/o Yellaiah.

15. Gopu Tekulamma, Wo. lnna ReddY.

16.Allam Chinnappa Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy

17.Allam Sow Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy 'l S.Vilasagaram Shankaraiah, S/o Komraiah. l9.Vilasagaram Pochaiah, S/o Komraiah

20. Thommanaboina Odelu, S/o Pochalu. 21 . Thommanaboina Rajaiah, S/o Odelu

22. Thommanaboina Pochalu, S/o Rajaiah

23.Atla Komuraiah S/o Odelu

24.Atla Rajaiah, S/o Ailaiah

25. Katkam Rajamallu, S/o Venkatanarsu

26.Vilasagaram Narsaiah. S/o Pochaiah 2T.Vilasagaram Alalaiah, S/o Bhoomaiah

28. Boddu Mallaiah. S/o Mallaiah

29.Velpula Bhoomaiah, S/o Mallaiah.

30.Velpula Ailaiah, S/o Mallaiah 31 - Nalluri Siddaiah, S/o Baburao

32. Nalluri Rathnam, Wo Siddaiah

33.Vadlamoodr Venkateshwarlu S/o Venkataiah

34. Vilasagaram Rajavva, Wo Rayaiah l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(CMP. NO: 7604 OF 2004 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution of the decree dated 13- 6-2003 made in OP No. 111 t 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T. Suhasini Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 34: Sri V. R. Avula The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND IruUAR SHAVILI AND HOII,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRI'UAI"A DEVI EADA APPEAL SIIIT No.371 7 of2OO3 JUDGMENT: G)er Hon'ble SmL Justie Tirumala Deui Eoda) This appeal, under Section 54 of tlre Land Acquisition Act' 1894,(forshort'theAct')ispreferredbytheSpecialDeputy Collector, Karimnagar aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.06.2003 passed in O'P'No' 111 of 1997 'by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial CourtJ 2 The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court enhancing the comPensatlon from Rs.12,0OO f - Pet acre that was granted by the Lanci Acquisition Oflicer to tJlat of Rs'64'OOO/ - per For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

3. as they wcre arrayed before the trial Court'

4. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the the Deputy Chief Engineer South Central requisition made bY RailwaY, Iand to an extent of Ac.28.13 guntas situated at Chegurthi Village of Karimnagar Mandal was acquired' for the purposc of la;*ing railu'ay line A draft notification was issued .i 2 AKs,J & ETD,J AS No.3717_2@3 under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act on 31.10.1995 in the Gazette and on 13.11.1995 in the local news paper. After conducting the due enquiry, the tand Acquisition Offrcer has frxed the market value of the land as Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the sarne was referred under Secrion 18 of the Act to the tria_l Court.

5. The trial Court has framed the following point for consideration: 'Whether the claimzrnts are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, at what rate?"

6. The claimants before rhe trial Court got examined pWs 1 to 5 and Exs.Al to A7 were markcd- One Manzoor Ahmed, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.C.Railway, Karimnagar got examined as RW1 and Exs.B I and El2 were marked.

7. Based on the evidencr: on record, the trial Court has enhanced the compens:rrion from Rs. 12,000/- per acre to Rs.64,OOO/ - per acre. Aggrievecl by rhe said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has prcfcrred the presenL appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of Ms.T.Suhasini, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri V. R.Avula, Iearned counsel for the respondent s. 3 AK'I & €TDJ AS t{o.3717 2003

9. The learned appellant counsel has argued that the trial court has not considered the evidence Iet in by tJle respondents/ Land Acquisition Officer and that it has simply passed tlre award on similar lines to that of O.P.No. 1IO of 1997 and that the features of land acquired under reference in O.P.No.llO of L997 are entirely different and in a different village when compared to the present land and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have enhanced tJ:e compensation to such an extent. That the trial Court has simply relied upon the sale deeds hled by the claimants and has enhanced the compensation multifold and therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed try the trial Court by allowing the appeal.

10. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court has enhanced tJre compensation after examining thc documents hled by the claimants ald that it does not call for anv interference. I 1. Considering the above facts, this Court frames the following points for consideration: I - Whether the claimants are not entitled for cnhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the trial Court's order and decree need an-r'interfcrence?

3. To u,hat relieP l .1 l I : i i I : { I I I i ! ! 4 AKS,' & €TD,J AS No.3717 2OO3

12. P'OINT ITo.r: a) A perusal of the record reveals that the land was acquired for the purpose of laying a railway line and a vast extent of Ac.2g.l3 guntas situated in the limits of Chegurthi village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired. Exs.Ar, A5 and A6 are the sare deeds relied upon by the claimants while Ex.A7 is the map. These sale deeds pertain to the year 7994 and hence, the market value specified in the said sa_le deeds can be considered as they pertain to the sale transactions within the preceding three years to t}te acquisition of the lald. Moreover, a perusal of Ex.AZ, the village map shows that the lands situated at Magdumpur village, Chegurthi village ald Durshed village are in the same alignment and they are adjacent to one another. It is further elicited through the evidence of pWl that the land under rhe salc rransaction in Ex.A1 is similar in nature to that of the acquired iand. As per the map, the acquired land is near to Raj ir Rahaclan, the Highway between Hyderabad and Karimnagar_ The eviclence of pWl further reveals that it is only 2 K.M. arvay from Rajiv t{2lr2612;i. The market value of the lands under Exs_A l, A.5 & A6 are Rs. 1,69,4O0/-; Rs.72,6OO/-; & Rs.80,floo/ per acre . Considering the potentiality of the land and vl.ide range in the price, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisitron Officer is considered,to be low and a reasonablc price has to bc fixed. 5 AKs,' & ETDJ A5 No.3717_2003 b) In the sa-le statistics found in the AnnexureJ of Ex.B2, the Proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer reflect that one exemplar in the year 7gg4 at Sl.No. 15 shows that in survey No.405/ 1, the market value was Rs. 1,72,OOO/- per acre, while in the year 1995 at Sl.No. t6 in survey No.39O/B, it is shown to be Rs.17,0OO/- per acre. Thus, following the principle of highest exemplar within the preceding three years of acquisition of land, then, the exemplar shown at Sl.No. 15 has to be considered by tJ:e L,and Acquisition Officer, but rhe Land Acquisition Offrcer has failed to do so. In this regard, it is apt to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Mehraudl KheuaJi Ttl.tst v. Statc o! pubJabr, wherein it is held as under: "When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted." c) Thus the evidencc of tl-rc claimants pWs I to 5 coupled with the evidence let in rhrough Exs.A l, A5 and A6 reveals that the land value is higher than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The trial Court has held at paragraph No.9 that the lands situated at Durshed village u.ere under challenge in O.p.No.l lO of 1997 and, that the said Courr has au,arded Rs.64,OOO/_ and that the said village is in rhe samc alignment as that of Chegurthi Village\, and therefore, has cnhanced the compensation to ' 1zorz1 s rc +lz I : ! I I I I l I I I i i i I I I I I l .! I 6 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.3717 2003 \ Rs.64,OOO/-. Thus, it is held that the trial Court is justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs. l2,OO0/- to Rs.64,OOO/_ per acre. d) It was contended by the learned appellant counsel that the sale transacdons shown in bits arrd pieces cannot be taken as a standard to fix the market value over a vast extent of land. It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Honblr: Apex Court in I-a.nd. AcqulsitTon Offcer, Reuenue Divisional OJlicer o. L.Kams.lammd and TH.sha,la Jain a. State oJ lJttarq.nchap. e) In Land Acquleition Oflicer, Revenue Divisional Olficer,s case (supra 1), the Honble Apex Court held as un<le r: '6....when no sales of comparabte land were ar,.arlable r.r.here large chunks of land had been sold, even land lransactions rn respect of smaller extent of lald could be tak<,n note o[ as indicating_ the price that it may fetch in resper.l o[ large tracls of land by making appropriate deductions srrctr as for development of the land by providing enough sp.r.e lor roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in informatiorr ol a lavout, lump sum payment as also the wattlng perr{ , I r ,.rlrr rrerl for se[ing the sites that would be formed,. 0 In Trtslw.la Jaln a. Statc of tltto:ranchal,s case (supra 2), thc Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 'The sale instances even of smaller plots coulcl lrc, considerecl for determining the market value of a larger chunk r)f land \\ith some deduction unless, there was cornparabihr\ rn porentral, utilization, amenities and infrastructure \\irlr hardlr. arrr, distlnction. On such principles each case rroLrlrl hare tu I>c considered on its own merits". ' {ts98) 2 Supreme Court Cases 3g5 (2011) 6 scc 47 i I 7 AXS,J & EID,J AS No.3717_2003 g) T?rus, when no other comparable documents are available, the sale transactions involving smaller extents of land can be considered by allowing reasonable deductions, if they are similar in potentiality, utilization, amenities and infrastructure. Based on the said principle, tJ.e trial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to that of Rs.64,OOO/- per acre. 1 I i j h) learned counsel for the appellant further argued that comparing the lands acquired in Chegurthi Village to that of I I Durshed Village and awarding similar compensation is not proper and that the tria-l Court has erred in giving the said hnding. A perusal of Ex.A7 reveals that both the villages are on the same alignment and thus, awarding a similar market value is not unjustified. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs,64,O0O/ per acre. point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. P'OMT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No. 1, this Court holds that the trial Court's order and decree do not need arry interference. 8 AKS,I & ETD,J AS No.3717 2OO3 i

14. PTOINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 13.06.2O03 passed in O.p.No. 111 of 1997 bv the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SO/. M MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER

1. 2

4. 5 The Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. (with records, if any) One CC to Sri T. Suhasini, Advocate tOpUCI One CC to Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sri V. R. Avula, Advocate tOpUCI Two CD Copies VH/DI YI\ t rtE STAr

1. o4 o () ? -k t1:1 ?t?5 6) "a: + 1--r:_ r"r.li HIGH COURT DATED: 1310212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.3717 of 2003 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Q* ? 4 >\ i i i f.l I THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 3717 OF 2003 Between:

1. The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.Unit, S.C.Railway, New Broad Guage Line, Karimnagar

2. The South Central Railway, rep by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 2nd Appellant is impleaded as per the Hon'ble Court order dated 21-9-2013 in LAASMP-1248/13- ...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER AND . 1. Balhini Bhoomaiah, S/o.Nampalli Z. Vilasagaram Anjaiah, Sio. Komaraiah. J. Vilasagaram Rajaiah s/o Buchaiah(died), L. Rs. Claimant No. 34

4. Vilasagaaram Ra;esham, S/o Buchi Mallaiah.

6. 7_

8. 9 Vilasagaaram Pochalu, S/o Veeraiah. Vilasagaaram Rajaiah, S/o Veeraiah. Vilasagaaram Kanakaiah, S/o Veeraiah. Yachamaneni Narender Rao, S/o. Ananda Rao Thaveti Shankar, S/o Mukundam 10 Singireddi Komuraiah, S/o Bhoomaiah 11 Gone Narsaiah. S/o Mallaiah 12 Vilasagaaram Kanakaiah, S/o Yellaiah. 13 Vilasagaaram Mallaiah, S/o Yellaiah 14 Vilasagaaram Srinrvas, S/o Yellaiah. 15 Gopu Tekulamma, Wo. lnna Reddy. 16 Allam Chinnappa Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy 1 I I

17.Allam Sow Reddy, S/o Bal ReddY l S.Vilasagaram Shankaraiah, S/o Komraiah.

19. Vilasagaram Pochaiah, S/o Komraiah

20. Thommanaboina Odelu, S/o Pochalu. 21 . Thommanaboina Rajaiah, S/o Odelu

22. Thommanaboina Pochalu, S/o Ralaiah

23.Atla Komuraiah S/o Odelu

24. Atla Rajaiah, S/o Ailaiah

25. Katkam Rajamallu, S/o Venkatanarsu

26.Vilasagaram Narsaiah, S/o Pochaiah 2T.Vilasagaram Alalaiah, S/o Bhoomaiah

28. Boddu Mallaiah, S/o Mallaiah

29.Velpula Bhoomaiah, S/o Mallaiah.

30.Velpula Ailaiah, S/o Mallaiah 31 . Nalluri Siddaiah, S/o Baburao

32. Nalluri Rathnam, Wo Siddaiah

33.Vadlamoodi Venkateshwarlu, S/o Venkataiah

34. Vilasagaram Rajawa, Wo Rajaiah ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Order and Decree dated 13-06-2003 in O.P.No 1'l 1 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of ltil/s. T. Suhasini, Advocate for the appellants and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No- 4 and Sri V.R. Avula, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 34. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 13.06,2003 passed in O.P.No. 111 of 1997 on the file Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR It SECTION OFFICER To,

2. VIVpsl The Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar Two CD Copies {+. HIGH COURT DATED: 13t0212025 DECREE AS.No.3717 ot 2003 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS fls-_ 40 v L\