The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Sri MD Ajmal Ah ned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 9 to 14: Sri M. Pranav The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT AKS,J&\'I?KR,J LAAS No.1O51 2OO7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY T,AND ACOUISITION APPEAL SUIT. No. l05t of2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Vakiti Rumakrislma Redd;) This Land Acquisition Appeat, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter ret-erred to as "the Act"), is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.03.2005 passed in O.P. No. 74 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civit Judge, Peddapalli (hcreinafter ref-erred to as the "Reference Court").

2. By the impugned judgment, thc Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Of ficer (lbr short, "LAO") in respect of the acquired lands, thereby giving rise to the present appeal at the instance ol the Land Acquisition Olficer & I{evenue I)ivisional Officer, Peddapalti. I. BRIEF FACTS: J The lands situated in Survey Nos.586,587' and 588, admeasuring: Ac. 13-11 guntas, Ac. 14-21 guntas, and Ac. 4-3 I guntas, respectively aggregating to a total extent of Ac. 32-23 guntas, situated at Jangaon v AKS, .) & VRKI?, .l I-AAS No.1A51 2407 Village. Rarnagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District, \\',' j acquircd for the 2 public purposc of providing house sites II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD:

4. A notification rrnder Section 4( l) of the [.and Ac. risition Act. 1894 was issrred on 15.03.1996, proposing acquisition of the sL bject lands lbr the public purpose ol providing house sites to the weaf t r serctions of the soclety

5. SubsequenLll,. thc [-and Acquisition Officer pa:j:( -] an arvard datcd

19.03.1996, fixing the market value of the acquired Iur Is at I{s. 18,500/- per acrc. Not being satisfied with the said compensa. rn, the claimants sought a relerence under Section l8 of the Act, r,, rich carne to be numbered as O.P. No. 74 ol 1996 belore the Reference (' trr1. III. ISSUES T'RAMED BY THE REFERENCE C-(]I IR'T.

6. The Relerence Court, upttn the plcadings, lramed tlr, fbllor.ving issues tbr determination (i). Whether the Award passed by the Land Acqui; lion Offlcer is not reasonable and adequate? AKS,J&\'I?KR,J LAAS No.1051 2007 (ii). Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced 3 compensation, and if so, at what rate? ( ii i). To what relief? TV. EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 7 . To substantiate their claim for higher compensation,, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-24, which comprised exemplar sale deeds and certified copies of earlier awards pertaining to adj acent lands

8. On behatf of the respondent-State, RW.1 was examined and Exhibit B-l was marked V. FTNDINGS OF THE REFERE,NCE COURT:

9. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the claimants had duly proved the genuineness of the sale deeds, namely Exs. A-12 and A-13, through the testimony of PWs 2 and 3, whose depositions were held to be credible and trustworthy

10. It was observed that the lands covered under the aforesaid sale deeds are situated adj acent to the acquired lands and are comparable in nature, potentiality, and utility. On this gremise, the Reference Court placed I I AKS,J&VRKR,,] I,AAS I'to.1051 2007 l reliance on the decision of the Hon'b1e Supreme Cour in Special Land Acquisition Officer y. T. Adinarayan Segtl , wherein i "r,as held that salc transactions mr-rst be provcd either by production o1 ;ale deeds or. by examining parlies or persons having knou4edge of such _t lnsactions.

11. The Reference Court further noted that the acc r ired lands, being fertile and having potential value, are located wi l in Ramagundam Municipality ancl Jangaon town, and are highly suitable f rr conversion into house sites

12. In strpport of its conclusion, the Reference Courr ilso relied on the principlc enunciated in Special Deputy Collector v. 1'utra Sambasit,a Raa2, which laid dow,n that, in fixing compensatior . the Court must consider the relative situation, naturc of use, incorne, potentiality, and distinctive f'eatures of the Iand.

13. Additionally, reliance was placed on Dilawarsab B thusab Mullasab v. Special Land Acquisition Officer3, where the Hor.r,t,l : Supreme Court held that the best evidence for determination of market v: ue is comparable ' AIR l9z9 sc qt: ' AIR r997 sc 2025 r AIR l9z+ sc 2333 AKS,J&.,RKR,J LAAS No.1051 2OO7 sales proximate to the date of the notification issued under Section a(l) of 5 the Act

14. In the light of the aforesaid precedents and evidence, the Reference Court was satisfied that Ex.A-12 (dated 10.04.1995) and Ex. A-13 (dated i9.04.1995), though reflecting a market value ofRs. 150/- per square yard, equivalent to Rs. 7,20,000/- per acre, provided a reliable basis for assessing compensatlon. 1 5. Considering the surrounding circumstances, the Reference Court, however, fixed the compensation at Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per acre. lt fuither held that the claimants were entitled to 30o/o solatiurn on the enhanced compensation, together with interest aL 9o/o per annum lrom the date of taking possession for one year, and thereafter at l5Yo per annum until payment or deposit into Court

16. Consequently, the Reference was partly allowed with proporlionate costs.

17. Thus, upon appreciation of the said evidence, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs. 18,500/- per acre to Rs. 80,000/- per acre I AKS,J&VRKR,J LAAS No.1051 2007 6

18. Being aggrievcd by the order dated 22.03.2(l(: passed by the Reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has ple { rned the present Appeal VII. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the ADDellant (State/LAu:

19. The learne d Government Pleader, appearing t,r behatf of the appellant, contended that thc Reference Court erred n relying upon Exs.A- 12 and A- I 3 , rvttich perlain to lands that are not :;it Lated in the same village as the acquircd lands, and therefore could not fcr n a proper basis for determination o f cornpensation.

20. The leamed counsel for the appellant submitted rl rt the Reference Court gravely erred in enhancing the market value of tl^: acquired lands from Rs. I 8,500i- per acre to Rs. 80,000/- per acre wit r rut proper basis. The reasons assigned by the Relerence Court, it is urged, are unsound and untenable

21. It is contended that the Reference Court failed to rL1 preciate that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award aftr:r collecting and analyzi",g sale statistics from the Sub-Registrar's offtce ,r .thin the vicinity At<s,J&wKR,.l LAAS No.1051 2OO7 '1 of the acquired lands, and therefbre, the award of the LAO deserved to be confirmed

22. 'l'he appellant further argued that the Reference Court committed an error in relying upon Exs. A- 12 and A-13, which pertain to lands not situated in the same village, and are of small extents, thus not comparable with the vast extent of acquired lands

23. It is also urged that, even assuming the lands fall under the same survey number, the vicinity, I'ertility, and nature of the lands difFer, and thereflore, the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance on the said sale deeds without making appropriate deductions.

24. On the basis of the atbresaid submissions, the Leamed Govemment Pleader has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed B) Contentions of the Resoondents (Claimanls) :

25. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the reliance placed by the Relerence Court on Exs. A-12 and A-13 was justified. Though the lands covered under the said documents are from different villages, they are comparable in terms of proximity, fertiliry, and potentialiry to the acquired lands { AKS,J&I'I?KR,J LA,AS No.lo51 2007 :: 8

26. It is urged that the Reference Court, after due r:o sideration of the surrounding circumstances, rightty enhanced the c: npensation, and therefore, no interference is called for in the present appet

27. [n such circumstances referred to above, the ler ned Counsel for Respondents prayed that, there being no merit in thc p esent appeal, the same deserves to be disrnissed VIII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

28. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for th r r:espective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on re: ,rd. the lollowing points arise for determination in this Appeal: (i). Whether the Reference Court was justiJied t i enhancing; the market value of the acquired lands? (ii). Wether the enhancement granted is in acc't t lance with law and evidence on record? (iii). To what relief are the claimants entitled'? IX. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPEII ;ATION:

29. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart <t ' :ompensation, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: AKS,J&\'I?KR,J LAAS No.1051 2OO7 Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) 9 Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Diff'erence (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) Rs. 18.5001 Rs.80.000/- Rs.61,500/-

30. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence, it is manifest that the Land Acquisition Officer had adopted a conservative approach in fixing the market value, whereas the Reference Court, on the other hand, took into account: i. the location and potentiality of the lands, ii. the sale exemplars of the proximate period; and iii. the comparability of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands.

31. The critical question, thereforc, is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Exs. A-12 and A-13, and its ultimate fixation of market value at Rs. 80,000/- per acre, can be said to be justified in law X. ANALYSN AND FINDINGS:

32. The leamed Govemment Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended that the Reference Court erred in relying upon Exs. A-12 and A-13 for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. It was submitted that the said sale deeds do not pertain to the same village AKS,J&WKR,J I-A-45 No.1o51 2007 l0 or sulvey numbers as those of the acquired lands, bu.. :o distinct sulvey numbers, and hence cannot form the basis of comparisor .

33. On the other hand, leamed counsel fbr the clairr: rts urged that the acquired lands are situated within the Ramagundam noli ied area, abutting developed residential colonies, and therefore have a higl xttential value for conversion into house sites. According to him, Exs. A-ll and A-13, though not from the exact same survey numbers, reflected the tr.t I market potential of lands situated immediately adjacent to the acquir,:r lands, and thus should be taken as reliable representativc sales.

34. lt will be worthrvhile to refer to Section 23 of tr r Act. Section 23 reads as under: 23- Matters to be considered in determining compen.\alion (l) In determining the annunt of compensation to he att,arcletl fLt, lantl acquired under thi,'Act, the Court shall take into con.\iLler ion first, the morket value of the land al the date oftha publication ol t ttt /notiJicotion under section 4, subsection (l)J [Substituted by Act 38 oJ 192-] . ectirn 7,.fitr ,, declarution relating thereto under section 6',.1, secondly, the damage sustained by the person inlerested, hy rean t tl the taking ol any standing crops or lrees which may be on the lantl al the timc t the Coller:tors taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interes,ted, t.t ,he time of the Collectors toking possession of the land, by reason of set,ering.sr.: , lantl from his other land; AKS,J&\RKR,J I,AAS No.1O51 2AO7 l1 fourthly, the damage (if any) .\uslained by lhe person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously a/fecting hi.s other property, mo,,'oble or immovable, in any ollrcr manner, or his earnings; l,fthly, tf, in consequence oJ thc ucquisition of the land by the (.oLlector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (ifany) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the dumage (if any) bonu.fide rcsulting lronr diminution of the profits oJ the land betteeen the time of the publicution oJ'the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking posses.sion of the land. (l-A) In addition to the market value o.[ the land, as abow provided, the Courl shall in etery case award on umount culculuted at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the pcriod commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notiJicution under sectiotl l, sub-section (l ), in respect of such land to the date of the at+'ortl ofthe Collector or the date oJ taking posses.rion ofthe land, whichever is earlier. Explanatbn. In computing lhe period referred to in lhis sub-seclion, any period or periods dur ing which the proceedings for the acqui.sition of the land were held up on occount of any stay or injunction by lhe order ofany L)ourt shull be excluded.l Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section I 5 (u'.e.f. 21.9. 1981).1 (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every cose oward. a sum qf (thirty per centuml /Substituted by Act 68 oJ 1984, Section 15, for " fifteen per centum" (w.e.f. 24.9. 1981). I on such market value, in consideration ofcompulsory nature of the acqui.sition.

35. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kttpil Mehra v. Ilnion of Indiaa laid down the method of determination of the market value and further observed as under: o lzotsl z scc zaz i AKS,J&\'I?KR,J LAAS No.105l 2007 t2 ' 10. Market Value: Firsl question that emerges i: .hat would be the reasonable market yalue which the acquirctl lands , rc capable of .fetihing. Ilhile.fixing the market value of the utquirer) tntl, rhe [-and Acquisilion ();ffictr is required to kecp in mind the litll,t:t nq.firclrtrs. (i) existing geographical situation of the land, (i, exi.tring ,r t of rhe land; (iti) already atailable advantages, like prorinitt to \ttt onol or Stdte Highway or road and/or developed area and (it,1 nrurA:t:, :irlut, of other kmd silualed in lhe same locality/ village/ area or udjactt r or trery ne(r to lhe ucquirad lond. I l. 'l'he standord method of determination ol the nt,ket value o any acquired land is bv the valucr evuluating tht lot,,! , thc date of vttluation publication of notilication Under Section 41',, dJhe ,14 acling as a hypothetical purchaser v,illing to purchose th, 'urul in open markct at the prevuiling price on lhat day, fron a.sellor t illing to:ell such lond at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value i deterntined with reference to the open morket sale of contltarcttll: luruJ in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buycr, ort r he[ore the dae of preliminary notification, as that would git'a u Jai, (lication of. lhe markel volue.

36. On a careful consideration, this Courl finds n,r substance in the contention of the appellant. The Reference Courr, +hile fixing the compensation, rightly relied upon Exs. A- I 2 and \- I 3. which are registered sale deeds of lands situated in Survey Nos. 9g and 599. The said lands are adjacent to and abutting the acquired larr, s in Slrrvey Nos. 586, 587 and 588. The purchasers under those sale de:ds, examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3, categorically dep, --dthat the lands purcl r sed by them were .\ 1l AKS.J&VRKR,J LI,AS No 1O51 2007 in the same locality, within the Ramagundam Notihed Area, and were comparable in nature and potentiality with the acquired lands' Their testimony stood the test of cross-examination and could not be dislodged. Thus, the Reference Court was justified in treating those transactions as genuine and representative sales tbr determining the compensation of the acquired lands.

37. The Leamed Govemment Pleader for the appellant, however, contended that the Reference Courl committed an error in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands instead of confirming the award passed by the LAO. It was submitted that the LAO had determined the compensation after collecting and verilying sale statistics lrom the Ofhce of the Sub-Registrar relating to lands situated in the vicinity. on the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the claimants contended that the sale statistics relied upon by the LAO were misconceived, as they pertained to lands situated 7 to 8 kilometers away in remote survey numbers, which were purely agricultural in character and bore no similarity in location, potentiality, or surroundings with the acquired lands' 3g. on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the sales relied upon by the LAO pertained to Survey Nos.732 and 813, nearly 7 to 8 "tt't'' Ii AKS,J&VRKR,J LAAS No.1A51 2007 ( l4 kilometers away tiom the acquired lands. Those lands a ere agricultural in nature, lacking tn development, and therefore canr )r be treated as comparable transactions for assessing the market valL I of' the acquired

39. On the contrary, the acquired lands are lr:ated within the Ramagundam Notified Area, abutting established resic:ntial colonies ol SCCL, FCI, and NTPC. Evidence on record further estrblishes that civic amenities such as roads, electricity, and water sup rlv \vere already available even prior to the notification under Section ..r l). 'fhereforc, the Reference Court was justified in discarding the sale stati s ics relied upon by the LAO as irrelevant.

40. Another contention urged by the appellant is I at the Reference Court erred in not making deductions, since Exs. A-12 r Ld A-13 pertained to srnall extents of land. However, the Leamed Counsr I tbr the claimants rightly submitted that the acquired lands were not under t loped agricultural lands but were already situated in the heart of the Rarr rgundam notified residential area. The record further reveals that the tands I ad long ceased to be used for cultivation, and even plots within the acquir: i suwey numbers were sold as house sites as early as 1982. Hence, the prin :iple of deduction AKS,J&VRKR,J LAAS No.1O51-2007 l5 applicabte for converting agricultural lands into residential layouts does not apply to the present case

41. It is pertinent to note that the argument of the appellant that deductions should have been made while relying on Exs' A-12 and A-13, which pertain to smaller extents, cannot be sustained- The law is settled that when small residential plots are relied upon to determine the market value of large extents of acquired land, certain deductions towards development charges may be warranted. However,, such deduction is not an inflexible rule; it depends on the facts of each case.

42. ln Ravinder Kumar Goel v. Slate of Haryanas, the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated that transactions of smaller extents may indeed be relied upon to assess the value of large acquired tracts, subject to appropriate deductions where warranted. At the same time, it was emphasised that the determination of comparability must be made with reference to location, fertility, and potentiality. The Apex Court, while addressing this issue, observed as follows: '13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that the High Court was nol justifecl in merely relying on the circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence was available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it is necessary for us to take note as to whethet the Reference Courl had 5 2023 SCC online sc 147 I i /t<s, J& t4?KR, J |,AAS Na. t0-51 2AO7 t 16 committed an error in nol relying on the sale exemplars 1u uced by the re.spondent.s u'ithout anulysing the comparabilit.y. The positio, of luu, is v..ell sellled thul y,hen large ertent of lands i.s acquired and if th,, ;ute exemplor. also /br thc lar.qe extent is available on record it would be .\ fer to reh.on tlrc .sume iJ they are comparable transactionr-. However, u; alreudy noted above, this (:ourt in Arma Singh (supra) has ulso hetd thnt t!9 sale instLnces o smaller extenls cannot be i'gnored- Further , lhis Cottrl Jic: reiterated in man)/ cases lhat the sule exemolars for smaller extent can e relied w;on subiect to aDDroDTiale deduction beinp nrovicled towart charges.' development t

43. In the present case, though Exs. A-12 and A-13 rr flected a value of Rs.l50/- per square yard (amounting to about Rs.7,26,0 r0/- per acre), thl: Reference Court. exercising restraint, fixed Rs.80,000/- ::r acre as t-air and reasonable compensation. This cautious approach, th< ugh significantly higher than the LAo's award of Rs.18,500/- per acre, rer ains conservativc considering the de,elopmental potential ofthe lands. T'hr s, the question of imposing deductions does not arise.

44. Tlre Hono.rable Supreme court i, Land Acquisittr n ofJicer t. Jasti Rohinf held that while assessing potentiality, the courr nust examine the land's proximity to residential, commercial, or industrial r stablishments, its amenities such as water and electricity, and the likr.ihood of future developrnent. The relevant paragraphs are extracted herer rder: u 1toesl r scc z rr AKS,J&VRXR,J LAAS No.1O51 2007 t7 t|. .... The question whelher the land has potential value as a builtling site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon diverse Jbctors as to ils conditions, the use to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and its suitubility for building purpose- Its proximity to resitlential, commercial or industrial areo' existence ol educatbnal, cultural. industrial or commercial institutions existence oJ amenities like water, electricity, drainage and the pttssibilily of fulure exten\ion in lh'ht area, lhe existence of or prospects of development schemes' the existence or absence of buitding activities towards the acquired lrtnd or m the neighbourhood thereof are the relevant.facls to be laken into considerution in evaluating the market value on the basis of potential use of the lund. It is trtrc that an element of guess, in an estimale' would have a play in cletermining the market value. But the present value alone falls to be determined cnd leals of imagination should not run riot or travel beyond its manifest limits nor be an arbitrary or whim of the court in delermining the compensation or the firation of the market value. The exisling conditions, the demand for the tand in the neighbourhood and other relaled and relcrant facts should be taken into consideralion in determining the compensation on the basis of potential value of the larul ln Gulzaru Singh case [(1993) 4 SCC 215], it was found that the sale deed Ex. A-9 vvas a genuine sale deed between a willing vendor and a willing vendee and it furnished the basis for determindtion of the market value lt was also lbund that the land was situate d in the developin s area and accordi nPl v this Co urt took those factors into consideration. and had fixed the market value on lhe basis o { ootential value on exislins conditions

12. Equally the clecision in Inder Singh v. IJnion of India [(1993) 3 SCC 2401 renders little assistance. In that case also, it was found that abodi land fetched Rs 33,600 per qcre and they had potential value for detelopment, such as for building houses etc as in the immediate neighbourhootl the lands were developed for induslrial purpose Taking those factors, this Court had determined the market value of ahadi lands at AKS,J&VRKR,J LAAS No.1O51 2OA7 l8 R.s 42,000 and oJ other harani lands at Rs 38,000. ln vie.t of the nature o.f lunds in that case. this Court had determined the markel t ue at the rale.s ntentioned lherein at'ter recording the Jinding that the ,tnd possessed oJ potenti0l t'alLrc.

45. ln Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Humi,l Mulla v. Land Acquisition Ofjicer' , the Honourable Supreme Clor ft observed that deduction towards development is justified only in cases of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands, generally to the extent of l/3rd. I owever, where no development is required lor implementation of the prr rlic purpose, such deduction is unwamanted. The relevant paragraph is extlr cted hereunder " 19. ln .firing the markel value of lhe a(:quire 1 undevcloped or underdeveloped, the courts hat'e geit deduclion of li3rd of the market value towards develol t v hen no dcyel<tpmgllL.is required to be made -lbr impl,) oublic nurLtose lbr v hich Iand is acquired. " lantl, v'hich is rully approved ttnl cost exceDt rcqalion o/ the

46. Likewise, in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special 1i hsildar and Lond Acquisition OfJicerE, it was held that deduction is cc rtext-specific and depends on the development already in existence. The elevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: ''10. Thi.s Court has in o recent decision in Spe.ial Tahsildar Land Acquisition. I/ishakapatnam v. Smt A. Mangala {i,wri (1991) I '1zotz; I scc sls ' l rslil a scc soo AKS,J&\'I?KR,J LAAS No 1051 2007 I9 SCC 218 follov,ing Tribeni Devi case [(1972) I SCC 480. AIR 1972 SC l117 (1972) 3 SCR 2081 pointed out as under; "It is to be noted that in building regulations, settin1 opart lhe lands for development of roads, drainoge and other dmenities like electricity etc. are condition precedent to upproye layout for building colonies. Therefore, ba.sed upun lha sitttution of the land and the need for development tht deduclion shall be made. W4tere acquired land is in the midsl of alreadv develoDe d land with amenities of roads. drainace, f electricity elc. then deduction o I/3 would not be iustified. In the rural areas housing schemes relating to weaker sections deduction of l/4 may be justified. "

47. Applying these principles, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court rightly adopted Exs.A- 1 2 and A- 13 as proximate and reliable exemplars without imposing any deduction, inasmuch as the acquired lands were already situated within a developed residential and industrial tou,nship.

48. The contention that the acquired lands differ in fertility or poftions of the survey numbers cannot stand, as the evidence shows that the lands are homogeneous in nature and potential, forming part of the Ramagundam Notified Area and abutting established colonies.

49. It must also be noted that the fertility of soil is no longer a relevant criterion once the lands have ceased to be used for cultivation and have acquired the character of potential house sites. This fact was already recognized by the Govemment in G.O.Ms. No. 33, Municipal AKS,J&W]<R,J |,AAS No.1051 2OO7 20 Administration, dated 19.01.1982, declaring the ar a as a notihed township. l'he Refercnce Court, therefore, rightly ,1 sregarded distant agricultural sale instances and relied upon genuine prcr imatc sales urlder Exs. A- l2 and A- 1 3 IX. CONCLTISION

50. In view ol the above discussion. this Court hold-s hat the Reference Couft was justified in discarding the agricultural sales r:lied upon by the LAO and in adopting Exs. A-12 and A-13 as the proper basis for determining the market value. The enhancement of t r mpensation from Rs. 18,500/- per acre to Rs.80,000/- per acre, togetr)r with statutory benefits such as solatium at 30oh and interest at 9%o and I ioZ as awarded, is fair and reasonablc in the facts and circumstances. 5 I . Hence, this Courl is of the considered view that t re findings of the Reference Court are hased on proper appreciation of ora I and documentary evidence, and are in consonance with the settled legal pr.i rciples goveming determination of compcnsation under the Land Acc r isition Act. The Reference Court has maintained a f-air balance between he exemplar sale deeds relied upon by the claimants and the material relierl upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, and has fixed the market value in a r st and reasonable ,--=- .\ AKS,J&VRKR,J I-AAS No.1O51 2007 2t manner. The enhancement granted by the Reference Court is neither excessive nor unsupported by record. Therefore, the impugned judgement warrants no interference by this Court XI. RESULT:

52. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the Appeal. The judgment and award dated 22.03-2005 in O'P' No' 74 ol 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, does not waffant any interference. The claimants shall be entitled to all statutory beneflts under the Acr, including solatium, additional value and interest. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed' SD/-NAYANI C NDRA SEKHAR RAO EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice ABHINAN (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) AND One Fair Gopy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) UMAR SHAVILI To, '1. The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli 2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Telangana High Court Advocate s As; >ciation Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings ;l Hyderabad

5. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court for the Ii ate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] I

6. One CC to Sri It/ D Ajmal Ahmed, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri [\4. Pranav, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies VH/ABK s- HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 t \ JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.1051 of 2007 _ t .il l O O a't I: ,( * L\ - - i' S-:. - (-rr.-.:. ' .l^ \\ t("\ ]4C t\ti z. t, cr I {: /l * .-// DISMISSING LAAS WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 1051 OF 2007 Between: The Land Acquisition officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli ..,APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER AND

1. M. Anjaiah, S/o Narayana R/o H.No.9-90, Ramnagar, Karimangar 2. M.A. Majeed, S/o Azeez R/o H.No.6-3-290, Karkhanagadda, Karimnagar 3. K. Pochaiah, S/o Venkatesham R/o H.No.7-91, ambedkarnagar, Manakondur Village and Mandal

4. Mohd. Khaja Azeemuddin, S/o Badruddin R/o Jangoan 5. Mohd. Khaja Ameeruddin, S/o Badruddin R/o Jangoan (Died per LRs-RR- 9 to 13)

6. Mohd Khaja Mohiuddin, S/o [Vloinuddin R/o Jangoan(Died per LRs-RR- 14 to 1B)

7. Mohd Khaja Vaheeduddin, S/o Badruddrn R/o Jangoan(Died per LRs-RR- 1e)

8. A. Lingaiah, s/o Veeramallu R/o H.No.7-537, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Dist

9. Mahboob Sultana Wo. Late Mohd. Khaja Ameenudin, Aged about 67 years, Occ.House hold.

10. Mohamrned J(haja Arifuddin S/o. Mohd. Khaja Ameenudin, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, '1 1. Md. Azhar Uddin S/o. Mohd. Khaja Ameenudin, Aged about32 years, Occ. Business,

12. trId. Azgar Uddin S/o. Mohd. Khaja Ameenudin, Aged 30 years, Occ. Business,

13. Azra Sultana, D/o. Mohd. Khaja Ameenuddin, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Household (Petitioners are R/o. H.No.5-2-24, Fathepura, Karimnar; u - 505001.) ...RES[', )NDENT Nos.9 to 13

14.Sagera Banu Wo. lVlohammed Moinuddin, Aged about '1 years, Occ. Nil 15.Azmath Banu Wo Late Mohd. Khaja lr/ohiuddin, Aged , bout 47 years, Occ. Household

16. Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin S/o. Late [r,4ohd. Khaja lVohidu: jin, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Govt. Employee

17. Mohamrned Hussain S/o. Late Mohd years, Occ. Business Khaja Mohiduddir Aged about43

18. Mohd. Khaja lvloizuddin, S/o. Mohammed Moinuddin, 1,1 Occ. Business ed about 43 years, (Petitioners a re R/o H.No.9 -4-87 122, N/d. Lines, Tolich cv ki, Hyderabad.) ...RESPo '19.Khaja Rafiu{din S/o. Mohd. Khajq Vaheeduddin, Agert Business, R/o. H.No. 12-2-71711t3jtB, Saptag-iri Asifnagar, Hyderabad ,IDENT Nos. 14 to 18 about 58 years, Occ. Colony, Rethibowli, Respondent Nos 9 to 13, 14 to 1B and 19 are bro of disea-sed Respondent Nos.5 to 7- as per court order c lA Nos.2,3 & 1 of 2019 in LAAS No. 1051 of 2007. restrrr rght on record as LRs tled 04.07.2022, vide ctively. Appeal under section 54 of L.A.Act 1Bg4 against the. tdgment and decree dated 2210312005 in oP No.74 of 1996 on the file of th: senior civil Judge, Peddapalli ...RESPO\ DENTS/CLAIMANTS This appeal coming on for hearing and upon pelt;ing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and rl e material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Gp for Appe; I ;. for the appellants, sri MD Ajmal Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 ,, 2 and sri tvl pranv for Respondent Nos. 9 to 14. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the judgment and award dated 22.03.2005 in o p. r r. 74 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, peddapalli, do, s pe1 warrant any interference;

3. That the claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act, including solatium, additional value and interest, and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/-NAYANI CHA DRA SEKHAR RAO //TRUE COPY// EPUTY R SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Clvil Judge, Peddapalli 2. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court for the State Hyderabad. [OUT] of Telangana at

3. Two CD Copies VI.VABK HIGH COURT DATED: 26109t2025 DECREE LAAS.No.1051 of 2007 DISMISSING LAAS WITHOUT COSTS a r\