The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant No.2 : Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy,SC Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3 to 31 & 33 to 55 : Sri V R Avala Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 32: Sri M Madhava Reddy The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RUMALA DEVI EAI)A AND KUMAR SIIAVILI APPEAL SUIT No. O37 of 2OO4 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Ti nala Devi Eada) This appeal, under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is Pre rred by the Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar aggrieved the order and decree dated i3.06.2003 passed in O.P.No. 11O f 1997 by the learned Sentor Civil Judge at Karimnagar (herei fter referred to as 'the trial CourtJ.

2. The appellant is aggrieved b the order of the trial Court enhancing the compensation to R 6a;OOOI- per acre that was granted by the Land Acquisition Offi er.

3. For convenience and clariry, t e parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court

4. The facts of the case in rief are that based on the requisition made by the Deputy hief Engineer South Central Railway, the land to an extent of .29. 16 guntas situated in the Iimitf of Magdumpur Village of K mnagar Mandal and District was acquired, for formation of New Broad Gauge Railway Line. A draft notification was issued under ection 4(1) and 6 of the Act on \ \ ? AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.1037 2004

04.11.1995 and 15.1i.1995 respectively in the Gazette,and on

14.11.1995 in the local news paper. After conducting the due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has hxed the market value of Rs.8,000/- per acre for dry iand, Rs. 13,00O/ ior B.C.Soil and Rs.16,000/- for wet land. Aggrieved by the sard award, the claimants have hled a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the trial Court.

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

6. The claimants before the trial Cogrt got examined PWs 1 to 6 and Exs.A1 ro A3O were marked. One Manzoor Ahmed, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.C.Railrvav, Karimnagar got examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked.

7. Based on the er.idence on record, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.64,OOO/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal. ,/.) / 3 AKS,] & ETD,J AS No.1037 2004

8. Heard the submissions of Sm T.Suhasini, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri .R.Avula, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned appellants coun el has argued that the trial Court has not considered the evidence let in by the respondents/ Land Acquisition Ofh r and that it has simply passed the award by believing t e evidence adduced by the claimants and that lhe acquired land does not portray the potentiality for development and th t the trial Court ought not to have enhalce the compensation to that of Rs.64,OO0/- per acre and therefore, prayed to set aside he au,ard passed by the trial Court by allowing the appeal.

10. The learned respondents cou sel, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court ha enhanced the compensation after examining the docr-rments file by the claimants and that it does not call for any interference

11. Considering the above facts, t is Court frames the following points for consideration 1 .) 3 Whether the claiman enhancement of compe Whether the trial Cou any interference? To what relieL: are not entitled for ation? 's order and decree need i ; I I I k 4 AKs,J & ETD,I AS No.1037 2004

72. POINT NO.l: a) A perusal of the record reveals that the land rvas acquired for formation of New Broad Gauge Railway Line and a vast extent of I.c.29.16 guntas situated in the limits of Magdumpur Village of Karimnaga r Mandal and Disr-rict. b) The claimants' contention before the trial Court is that the lands are similar in nature and that they are all fit for house sites. But the sale transactions which are referred bv the Land Acquisition Ofhcer were sold for agricultural purpose. c) A perusal of the sale statistics in the Land Acquisition Ofhcer's proceedings under Ex.B2 reveal that certain lands were sold @ Rs.73,3O0/- per acre which js reflected at Sl.No.63 in survey No.119ll to an extent of Ac.O-03 guntas @ Rs.5,500/-. Another sale transaction, dated 12.11.1992 is reflected at Sl.No.2 in survey No.1 14/B admeasuring 269 Sq.Yards was sold for Rs.4,O35/-, that amounts to Rs.72,6O0/- per acre- But the said transactions were not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. d) The Au.ard passed by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer discloses that he had referred 121 sale transactions out of q'hich S1.No.83 in which Ac.01-O0. guntas was sold in survey No. 250 for a consideration of Rs.13,O00 l- atd that amount is fixed for dry lands. He lLas also considered the sale transactions at Sl. No.97 ,/,, / i ; I I i I I I Il l I I I I I I I 5 AKs,J & ETD,J AS No.1037 2004 and 99 and fixed the market valu at Rs. 16,000/- per acre with regard to land in survey No.238 and he has also considered Sl.Nos.41, 42 and 43 sale transacti ns pertaining to survey No.76, over an extent of Ac.Ol-OO gunta d fixed the market value as Rs.8,00O/ - per acre for B.C.Soil lan s Thus, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has fixed three different v ues by referring to the sale transactions as discussed above, b t has ignored the exemplar at S1.No.6 and Sl.No.2 which are of hi est value. In this regard, rt is apt to refer to a decision of the Ape Court in Mehraual Kheuaji Trust u. State of PubJabl, wherein t is held as under "When tltere are seueral similar lands, it is the general exemplars, f it is sattsfied tran-soction, has to be considere Iars utith reference to le that the highest of the that it is o bona ftde and. accepted.' e) The evidence of PWl reveals that the acquired lands are being transformed from agriculture urpose to that of commercial purposes because of the rapid de lopment of Karimnagar town and that within a radius of 10 KM from the town, the land were being used for different commercial purposes such as educational institutions, sma,ll scale industries, ce mills, ice factories, poultry farms, petrol hlling bunks etc., and at the acquired land is close to the highway and thus, they con nded that the value ltxed by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer is mea r The sale deeds filed by the ' 1zorz1 s scc +:z I I I I II 6 A(S,J & EIO,J AS No.1037 2004 claimants are at Exs.A1 to A3. Under Ex.A1, dated 12.17.1992 an extent of 269 Sq.Yards in survey No.1 14 /B was sold (@ Rs. 15/- per Sq.yard, for a total amount of Rs.4,O35/-. Uncler Ex.A2, dated

28.07.1994 an extent of 363 Sq.yards in survey No.l l9/ 1 was sold @ Rs. i5/-, for a total amount oi Rs.5,500/- per acre. Under Ex.A3, dated 26.12.1994 an extent of Ac.0-2O guntas in survey No.256/C was sold (@Rs.80,0OO/- per acre. The sale deeds under Exs.Al to A3 pertain to the year 1992 and 1994 and hence, the market value specified in the said sale deeds can bc considered as they pertain to the sale transactions within the preceding three years to the acquisition of land. f) Thus, a perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 discloses that the lands had good potential for development and further, the sale transactions under Exs.A2 and A3 are also proved as the vendecs of the said sale transactions were examined as pW2 and pW4 and nothing could be elicited during their cross examination to discredit their evidence. Irurther, RWl has stated in his cross examination that the lands that are acquired for laying the railway line are partll, situated adjacent to main road from Karimnagar to Godavarikhani and remaining lands are situated at some distance from the road. Therefore, the evidence of pWs 1 to 4 and RW 1 coupled with the exhibits under Exs.Al to A3 and Ex.B2 proved _/ that thy'acquired lands fetch good value and the compensation ./ ,/ 7 AKS,J & ETD,I AS No.1037 2004 awarded by Land Acquisition Ofhce appears to be low as he failed to take the highest of the exemplar Thus, this Court holds that the enhancement in compensation awarded by the trial Court to that of Rs.64,000/- per acre is jus g) It was contended by the le ed appellant counsel that the sale transactions shown in bits an pieces cannot be taken as a standard to hx the market value o r a vast extent of land. It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'b1e Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Re ue Divisional OlJicer a. L. Kamalannmd and Trishala Jq u. Stete o.f Uttaranchap. h) In Land Acquisitiou Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex C t held as under: "6. ...when no sales of compar Iarge chunks of land had been respect of smaller extent of indicating the price that it may of land by making appropri development of the land by pr sewers, drains, expenses invol lump sum payment as also selling the sites that would be le lald were available q,here ld, even land transactions in d could be taken note of as fetch in respect of large tracts te deductions such as for ing enough space for roads, d ir information of a layout, waiting period required for i) In Trishala Jain u. State of Uttaranchat s case (supra 2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as und "Ttre sale instances even of for determining the market val some deduction unless, there utilization, amenities artd distinction, On such princip considered on its own merits". ler plots could be considered of a larger chunk of land with comparability i.n potential, tructure with hardly ary each case would have to be \ I '(1998) 2 supreme Court Cases 385 t (zorr) e scc +z t l AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.1037 2004 { 't j) Thus, when no other comparable documents are available, the sale transactions involving smaller extents of land can be considered by allowing reasonable deductions, if thev are similar in potentiality, utilization, amenities and infrastructure. Based on the saicl principle, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.64,000/-. Point No.1 is answered accordingiy.

13. POINT NO,2: In vieu' of the reasoned finding arrived at point No.1, this Court holds that lhe trial Court's order and decree do not need any interference.

14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal rs dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 13.06.2003 passed in O.p.No. 110 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- I NAGA LAKSHMI \t JOTNT REGTSTRAR. \l SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The S_enior Civil Judge Court, Karimnagar(With records, if any) 2. One CC to Smt. T Suhasini, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri M Madhava Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 1. 9n" 99 t" lri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocale IOPUCI 5. One CC to Sri V R Avula, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies ADK l l I i i HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.1037 of 2004 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS \ 2 DRAFTS Y oR THE S T4 4 1 2 AUE 2025 () C) '* .qE)4 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE AD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEE TWO THOUSAND A TH DAY OF FEBRUARY D TWENTY FIVE PRES NT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI AN THE HONOURABLE SMT JUS CE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPE SUIT NO 1037 F 2004 Between: '1 . The Special Deputy Collector,L.A. Un Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, South Central 2. The South Central Railway, nilayam,Secu nderabad. Appellant No.2 is lmpleaded LAASMP.No.1249 of 201 3. ,LMD Colony, Karimnagar,Now Special ilway, Karimnagar. by its General Manager, Rail as per the C.O.DI.21-9-2013 in AND 1 Singireddy Chandra Reddy, S/o.Bala Mandal, Karimnagar District. m, llTo.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar ...AppellanUReferring Officer

2. Devanpalli Tirupathi, S/o.Ramaiah, Rt/ Karimnagar District.

3. Thandra Peeeraiah, S/o.Durgaiah, Rl/ Karimnagar District.

4. Thandra Pochaiah, S/o.Durgaiah, Rl/o Karimnagar District.

5. Thandra Nampalli, S/o.Durgaiah, Rt/o. Karimnagar District.

6. Devanpalli Rajaiah, S/o.Ummaiah, Rl/ Karimnagar District. 7, Devanapalli anjaiah, S/o.Ummaiah, Karimnagar District. Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, .Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, agdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, .Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal,

8. Miryala Rajaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, R/o.Na 9. Chigiri Rajaiah, S/o.Lasmaiah, Fl/o.Na ayanaraopalli(v), Karimnagar District. yanaraopalli(v), Karimnagar District.

10. Chelkala Hanmantha Reddy, S/o.Vee ' Karimnagar District. 11. Pothada Narsaiah, S/o.Jakkaiah, R!/o. Karimnagar District. iah, Rl/o. Narayanaraopalli(v), agdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, a-- 1 2. Potharla Venkataiah, S/o.Sailu, R:/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. 1 3. Potharla Durgaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Rl/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Karimnagar District. "Mandal,

14. Potharla Peda Narsaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rl/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. 1 5. Potharla Balaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rl,/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

16. Potharla Durgaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rl/o. Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar lrllandal, Karimnagar District.

17. Potharla Mysaiah, S/o.Balaiah, R/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

18. Potharla Muthaiah, S/o-Balaiah, Rl/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

19. Pandi Anthaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rl/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

20.Thogaru Venkata Narasaiah S/o. Mallaiah (Died his L.R.s Claimants 50,51 and 52)

21. Thogaru.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Veeraiah, R/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. 22, B,almuri Kishan Rao, RTo.Mangapathi Rao, Rlio.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal. Karimnagar District.

23. ghivanathuni Rajaiah, S/o.Narayana, Rl/o. Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

24. Nalluri Siddqiah, S/o.Bapu Rao, Rl/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

25. Bandi Kethamma, W/o.Rajaiah, Rt/o. Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District-

26. Thogaru Venkat Reddy, S/o.Raghava Reddy, Rl/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

27. 9ankari Komuraiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rl/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

28.Thogaru Gopal Reddy, S/o.Raghava Reddy, R/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

29.Thogaru Narayana Reddy, S/o.Raghava Reddy, R/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal. Karimnagar District.

30.Allam Sowreddy, S/o.Bal Reddy, R:/o.Chegurthi(v), Karimnagar,Mandal.

31. Moola lachaiah, Slo.Parashramulu, Rl/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar Dishict.

32. Balmuri V-asantha Devi, W/o.Damodar Rao, Rl/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. Karimnagar Diskict.

33. Bommari Balaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, R/o u Bom mafl J Kan mnasa a Rao S/o Neel Kaft mnagaI D agannath r Mandal, s ct agdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, har Rao RYo Mag d m pu( u )

35. Jakkam Rajaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, R/o. Karimnagar District.

36. Vilasagaram Mallesham, S/o.Komara Mandal, Karimnagar District.

37. Vilasagaram Pochalu, S/o.Komuraiah Mandal, Karimnagar District. umpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, ah, R/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Rl/o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar

38.Allam Chinnappa Reddy, S/o.Bal Red y, R/o.Chegurthi(v), Karimnagar Mandal.

39. Jakkam Shankaraiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Karimnagar District.

40. Jakkam Narayana, S/o.Narsaiah, R/o. Karimnagar District.

41. Vilasagaram Balaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rt/ Karimnagar District.

42.Vilasagaram Rajaiah, S/o.Buchaiah, Karimnagar District. o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, agdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal, .Magdu mpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, /o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal,

43. Vilasagaram Chandraiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Mandal, Karimnagar District. R/o. Magdu mpur(v), Karimnagar

44. Vilasagaram Muninder, S/o.Komaraia Mandal, Karimnagar District. , Rio. Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar

45. Thummadaboina Odelu S/o Mallaiah( R/o. Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mand ied), LRs R.53 and 54 l, Karimnagar District.

46. Potharla Yellaiah, Sio.Mallaiah, Rl/o. M Karimnagar District. gdumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal,

47. Potharla Ramaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Rl/o Karimnagar District. agdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal,

48. Thogaru Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.N Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar Distri rayana Reddy Fi/o. Magdumpu(v), t.

49. Bommagani Ravi, S/o.Yellaiah, Rl/o.M Karimnagar District. dumpur(v), Karimnagar Mandal,

50.Thogaru Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o Fl/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mand enkata Narayana Reddy, l, Karimnagar District. 51 . Thogaru Venugopal Reddy, S/o.Naray Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar Distri na Reddy, Fi./o. Magdumpur(v),

52. Thogaru lakshminarasaiah, S/o.late Na Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar Distri ayana Reddy, Rl/o.Magdumpu(v),

53. Thammadaboina Rajaiah, S/o.Odelu, Mandal, Karimnagar District. o.Magdumpur(v), Karimnagar .--'. .g ,!*. .@"@ t:.' / / //' ,/ ,/,

54.Thammadaboina Komaraiah, S/o.Odelu, R:/o.Magdumpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

55. Vilasagaram. Rajamma, W/o.late Rajaiah, Rl/o. Ma gdu mpu(v), Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. .,.Respondents/Claimants Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 against the Judgment and decree dated 13/06/2003 made in o.P.No.110 of 1997 on the file of the court of the senior Civil Judge Court, 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 paplrs in the suii and upon hearing the arguments of smt. T Suhasini, sc for the Appellant No.1 and Sri p Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant No.2 and of sri V R Avala, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1,3 to 31 & 33 to 55 and sri M Madhava Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 & 32. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed uphording the order and decree dated 13.06.2003 passed in o.p.No.'l 1o of 1997 by the senior civir Judge at Karimnagar ;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal_ //TRUE COPY// \ sQ/- I NAGA LAKSHM|, REGTSTRAR. \JOlNT '{ secnoN oFFtcER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge Court, Karimnagar 2. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:13 102t2025 I I DECREE AS.No.1037 of 2004 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS A\b\ K