The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Cross Objector Nos.'l to 32: SRI V. R. AVULA Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. T. SUHASINI The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT /^ HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND KUUAR SHAVILI AND HOT{'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRT'MAI,/T DEVI EAI)A A aI Suit No.3736 of2O03 AND X-Obiections (SRl No.3393 of 2OO9 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. JusticE TitumaLa Devi Eoda) This appeal, under Section 54 of the tand Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar, aggrieved by the order and decree dated

13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No. 112 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court').

2. The appellants - Special Deputy Collector is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court enhancing the compensation from Rs. 18,OOO/- per acre that was gralted by the Land Acquisition Officer to that of Rs.2,O0,O00/- per acre.

3. X-Objections are frled by the respondents - claimants praying for enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,O0,OO0/-. It is their contention that the lands which were acquired are useful for residential house purpose and that the Court below while enhancing the market value ought to have considered that the neighbouring lands are sold for residential 2 AKS,J & ETDJ houses, medical, educational institutions, irdustrial and commercial establishments and documentary evider ce was filed to the said effect. It is their further contention tha - the acquired lands in subject matter O.P.No.O4 of 1998 were pu,.chased by the claimants therein by forming into house building sor iety and many places were sold in the year 1988 and that the a cquisition has taken place when the construction was about to lre started and that the lands in the vicinity were developed with ric : mills, poultry farms and dairy farms ald therefore, the same yard;tick has to be applied in O.P.No.O4 of 1998. They further contt nded that the evidence of PWs I to 7 and the documentary r: iuidence under Exs.A1 to A3O ought to have been considered by th: Court below. That the lands acquired are situated nearer to Kar imnagar Town and that they are just 1 KM away from the Govern-nent Hospital, Karimnagar and that during the pendency of t re acquisition proceedings the area in which the acquired lands is. situated, was brought under the purview of the Municipal ( )orporation of Karimnagar. Therefore, they prayed for en lancement of compensation to Rs.4,O0,000/- per acre.

4. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. I 3 AKs,J & ETD,J

5. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition made by the Deputy Chief Engineer South Central Railway, art extent of Ac.31.07 % guntas situated in the limits of Arepa-tli village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired, for the purpose of laying railway line. A draft notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act on O2.11.1995 in the Gazette and on 14.1 1.1995 in the local news paper. After conducting the due enquiry, the l,ald Acquisition Oflicer has frxed ttre market value of the land as Rs. 18,O00/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petilion for reference and the same was referred under SecLion 18 of the Act to the trial Court.

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

7. The claimants before the trial Court got examined PWs 1 to 6 and Exs.Al to A3O were marked. One Sri Manznor Ahmed, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.C.Railway, Karimnagar got examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked. I ) 4 AKS,J & ETD,J

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 18,000/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enlrancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard the submissions of Smt.T.Suhasini, le,rrned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri V.R.Alrrla, learrred counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned appellants counsel has arguec that the trial Court has not considered the evidence lc respondents/Land Acquisition Ofhcer and that it has simply in 6y the passed the award based on the sale deeds filed b r the claimants and simply believed their evidence and has awarde,l the exorbitant amount and has therefore, prayed to set aside the :.ward passed by the trial Court by allowing the appeal.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on the cLher hand, has filed cross objections and submitted that the rial Court has gralted a meager amount of compensation, and that the documents frled by the claimants are not properll, considered and has therefore, prayed this Court to enhance the cor rpensation. \ \ 5 AKS,J & ETD,J

72. Considering the above facts, the grounds raised in the appeat and the X-objections hted by the claimants, this Court frames the following points for consideration: I c Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the trial Court's order and decree need any interference?

3. To what relieP

13. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the record reveals that for the purpose of Laying a railway line, a vast extent of Ac.31.O7 % guntas situated in the limits of Arepalli Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired. Exs.A 1 to A7 are the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants while Ex.A16 is the map. Under Ex.Al, dated

19.12.1994 an extent of 242 Sq.yards in survey No.234 was sold @Rs. 18,200/- wtrich comes to Rs.75/- per square yard. Under Ex.A2, dated '22.12.1994 an extent of 2OO Sq.yards in survey No.235 was sold @Rs.20,OO0/-. Under Ex.A3, dated 24.12.1gg4 an extent of I2O Sq.Yards in survey No.237 was sold @ Rs,1S,OOO/-. Under Ex.A4, dated 02.02.1994 an extent of Ac.O- 18 guntas in survey No.2OO was sold @Rs.2,l7,gOO/_. Under Ex.AS, dated 02.02.1995 an extent of 1333.33 Sq.yards in survey No.22O was sold @ Rs.66,7OO/-. Under Ex.A6, dated 26.04.tggs 5 AKS,J & ETD,J an extent of 313 Sq.Yards was sold @ Rs. l5,7OO/- Under Ex.A7 an extent of 378 Sq.Yards in survey No.223 laa was sold @Rs.18,9OO/-. All these sale deeds pertain to the ..ears 1994 and 1995 and hence, the market value specilied in the said sale deeds can be considered as they pertain to the sale tran;actions within the preceding three years to the acquisition of the Lrnd_ Moreover, a perusa.l of Ex.A16, the village map shows that the acquired lands are nearer to National Highway. b) It is elicited through the evidence of pWl th,rt the acquired lands are situated by the side of PWD road i.e. National Highway leading from Hyderabad to Nagpur via., Karimnar;ar Mancherial and that their acquired lands are situated rear abadi o[ Karimnagar City which is a Special Grade Munici raliry and that his lands in survey Nos.233 to 235 are located at zr listance of 2OO to 25O yards from the said PWD road. It is further , :licited through his evidence. that there is one Matha Manikeshwari Temple, one of the biggest holy place of Karimnagar District and that there is a Housing Society by name Veerabhadriya Housing Colony developed in the year 199O and that his neighing lands werr being sold for house plots and commercial purposes through Sripriya Real Estates in the year 1990 at the rate of Rs.2O,OOO/ ;er gunta. It is furthdr elicited through him that there is a rice mill, junior college, 7 AKSJ & ETD,j poultry farm etc., in the vicinity of their lands. The t and Acquisition Officer who was examined as RWI has deposed before the trial court admitting that the present acquired land is situated at a distalce of 1 KM from the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and that the entire land acquired for laying the railway line are mostly situated adjacent to the main road from Karimnagar to Mancherial and that remaining lands are situated at a distance from ttre road. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of pWl and RWl that the acquired lands are situated in a developed area and that it is at a distance of I KM from the Government Hospital and also that the land acquired has more potentiality towards development into house plots. c) A perusal of Ex.B2, the proceedings of the Land Acquisition officer reveal the sale statistics of the year 1995 at Arepalri v lage. It is further revealed tJlat the exemplar at Sl.No.599 shows that the highest sale value is Rs.8,7O,70 4 / - per acre. In this regard, it is apt to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Mehrautal Khewaji Tlust o. Sto:te oJ hlbJabr, wherein it is held as under: 'Wlen there are seueral exemplars toith reference to similar land-s, it i.s the general rule that the higlest of the exemplars, if it rs safisTied that it is a bona fide transaction, hos to be \ corsidered and accepted." \ I (2012) 5 scc 432 I I AKS,J & ETD,J d) In the present case, the highest of the exr mplars, is not considered by the Land Acquisition Oflicer v.hile awarding compendation. 9) Thus, considering the evidence adduced b1, the ciaimants under Exs.A 1 to A30 and also the sa,le transactio rs disclosed in the statistics under Ex.B 1 , it is revealed that the lz nds at Arepalli village fetch more value, than what is awardec, by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement in compensation anr I the amorlnt awarded by the trial Court i.e. Rs.2,0O,0OO/- is held to be justihable amount. 0 It was contended by the learned appellant c runsel that the sale transactions shown in bits and pieces cannol be taken as a standard to hx the market value over a vast extent of land. It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Land. Acquisitlon Officer, 8,etanue Dtulsional Officer u. L.Kannq.lamma2 ar.d lfr.shala Jain a. State of tltt:arancha'p. d In Land Acquisltion OIIicer, Revenue Divisrioual Officer,s case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as unde r: '?(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385 '(zorr) o scc +z 9 AI(SJ & EID,J "6. -..when no sa-les of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been so1d, even land transactions irr respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, involved in information of a tayout, sewers, drains, exp€nses lump sum payment as also the waiting period requirei for selling the sites that s/ould be formed". h) In T'risll;a.la Jain a. State ol Uttaro;ncltats case (supra 2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "The sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of tand with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its ovrn merits". i) Thus, 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, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 18,000/- to that of Rs.2,OO,00O /- per acre. poiot No. I is answered accordingly. 1+. PIOINT NO.2: In view of tl:re reasoned frnding arrived at point No. 1, this Court holds that the trial Court's order and decree do not need any interference. 10 AKS,J & ETD,J

15. POINT NO.S: In the result, the appeal and the X-objectio:rs filed by the ..1 claimantS are dismissed upholding the order anc decree dated

13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No. 112 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall Ltand closed. SD/- B.SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR !eclow oFFtcER //TRUE COPY// n \ To, '1 The Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. (with records if\dy) 2. One CC to Smt. T. Suhasini, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V R. Avula, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies YY 1 \ I \ d.av .)oJ HIGH COURT DATED:1 310212025 (2drafts) (t a, o .,./-1 i \\c gTAT€ Or x l t 1'ri iui $15 \' - I -.i.-.-::-::-=- ;tc. -. - - COMMON JUDGMENT AS.No.3736 of 2003 AND X-OBJECTTONS (SR) No.3393 of 2009 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. WITHOUT COSTS. e4re,L G Xd* t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE IHIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 3736 OF 2003 ANO X-OBJECTIONS {SR I No.3393 of 2009 APPEAL SUIT NO: 3736 OF 2003 Between: 1 The Special Deputy Collector/LAO LA Unit, South Central Railway New B.G. 2. The South Central Railway, rep by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, LINE, Karimnagar. Secunderabad. Appellant No.2 is impleaded as per Court order dated 04-10-2013 made in ASMP No 3736 of 2003. ...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER AND 1 ) 3 4 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. '15 16 17 to. 't9 )n Moola Mutha Reddy, S/o.Raghava Reddy Nereveni Sathayawathi, Wo. Pochaiah Neerukulla Mallaiah, S/o. Narsaiah Peechara Ramulu, S/o. Kistaiah Neerukulla Kondaiah, S/o. Nagaiah Jangapalli Mallaiah, S/o. Hanmaiah Yousuf Shareef, S/o. Kaseem Sharief Mohsin Mohan Khan, S/o. Moin Mahammed Khan Bolladi Raji Reddy, S/o. Venkataiah Moola Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy Moola Kishan Reddy, S/o. Mutha Reddy Mengani Nagaiah, S/o. Hanmaiah Sampathi Sathaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Akula Laxmi, Wo. Mallesham Moola Padma, Wo. Madhusudhan Reddy Moola Madhusudhan reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy Sankedi Laxma reddy, Sio. Venkat Reddy Ennam Ramanamma, Wo. Narasimhareddy Kalvacherla Radha, Wo. Sai Reddy Mengani Mallaiah, Sio. Yellaiah 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Jinuka Anjaiah, S/o Durgaiah Singireddy Padma, Wo. Rajireddy Sunkari Mallesham, S/o. Narayana Manda Sathayamma, Wo.Venkataiah Bingisetti Kalavathi, Wo Rajalingam Anurasu Anuradha, Wo. Adi Reddy Bandela Madhusudhan, S/o. Ramaiah Edla Venkatamma, Wo. Lingaiah Ennam Raji Reddy, S/o. Narsmha reddy Gopadi Veera Reddy. S/o Gopal reddy Moola Narayana Reddy, S/o. Mutha Reddy Muduganti Ram Reddy, S/o. Mukunda reddy ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Ar l against the order and decree dated 13.06 2003 passed in OP No.1 12 of 1997 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grotlnds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papets in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. T . Suhasini, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri V. R. Avula, Advocate f,lr the Respondent No.1 to 32. X.OBJECTIONS (SR) No.3393 of 2009 Between: 1 2 J 4 5 o 7 8 9 M.Mutha Reddy, S/o Raghava Reddy R/o. Theegalaguttap ally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar N.Sathayawathi, W/o. Pochaiah R/o. Theegalaguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karim nagar N.Mallaiah, Sio Narsaiah R/o. Theegalaguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar P. Ramulu, S/o. Kistaiah R/o. Karimnagar Town Karimnag;rr N.Kondaiah, S/o. Nagaiah R/o. Theegalaguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar J.Mallaiah, S/o. Hanmalah R/o. Theegalaguttapally H/o. A epally Village, Karimnagar Yousuf Shareef, S/o. Kaseem Sharief R/o. Ramagundam. Karimnagar M.Mohan Khan. S/o. Moin Mahammed Khan R/o. Karimnagar Town Karimnagar B.Raji Reddy, S/o. Venkataiah R/o Theegalaguttapally H/ >. Arepally Village Karimnagar 10 M Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy R/o Theegalaguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar 11 12 13 14 15 lC) 18 '19 20 21 22 tJ. 24 ZJ 26 29 30 31 .,. M Kishan Reddy, S/o. Mutha Reddy R/o. Theegalaguttapally H/o Arepally vlrage, Kaflmnagar M.Nagaiah, S/o. Hanmaiah R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar S.Sathaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Rio. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar A.Laxmi, Wo. Mallesham R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar lVl.Padma, Wo. Madhusudhan reddy R/o. Theegra'laguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar [\/ Madhusudhan. Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy R/o, Theegataguttap a|y Hto Arepally Village, Karimnagar S.Laxma Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy R/o. Chakunta Village, Choppadandr (M) Karimnagar E. Ramanamma, Wo. Narasimhareddy R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar K-Radha, Wo. Sai Reddy, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District M.Mallaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Karimnagar Townb, Karimnagar District. J.Anlaiah, S/o. Durgaiah, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar Drstrict. S.Padma, Wo. Rajireddy, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. S.Mallesham, S/o. Narayana, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. M.Sathayamma, Wo.Venkataiah, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. B. Kalavathi, Wo. Rajalingam R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar A.Anuradha, Wo. Adi Reddy, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District B.Madhusudhan, S/o. Ramaiah R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar E.Venkatamma, Wo. Lingaiah R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar E.Raji Reddy, S/o. Narsmha Reddy R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar GopadiVeera Reddy. S/o Gopal Reddy, aged about 70 years. R/o. I heegalaguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar M Narayana ReOOy, Slo. Mutha Reddy R/o. Theegalaguttapally H/o. Arepally Village, Karimnagar M Ram Reddy S/o. Mukunda Reddy, R/o. Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. ...CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS AND The Special Deputy Collector/LAO LA Unit, South Centrat Railway New B.G. Line, Karim nagar. ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under Order 4 I , Rule 22 of CPC against the order and decree dated 1 3 06.2003 passed in OP Nr .1 12 of 1997 pn the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the groL.nds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material pape's in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. R. Avula, Advocate for the lross Objector Nos. 1 to 32 and of Smt. T. Suhasini, Advocate for the Respoodent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 'l . That the Appeal Suit and the Cross Objections filed by tle claimants be and ' hereby are drsmissed upholding the order and decree dated '13.06-2003 passed in O.P.No.1'12 of 1997, by the learned Serior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in the appeal and lross Objections. SD/. B.SATYAVATHI JOINTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \, \ SiECTION OFFICER To, 1. 2 The Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar Two CD Copies PSL fir HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 (2drafts) COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.3736 of 2003 AND X-OBJECTIONS (SR) No.3393 of 2009 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. WITHOUT COSTS. \ "*t.l #*.