The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V. Manohar Rao The Court deliver,ed the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAIYD KTIMAR SHAVILI AND I{ON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRT'MAI.A DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.375 of 2o,06 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Jttstice Titumata Devi Eoda) This appeal, under Section 54 of the tand Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the Larrd Acquisition oflicer, RDo, Nizamabad, a ggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.O8.2005 passed in O.p.No.46l of 1995 by tJre learned I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference CourtJ.

2. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Government has acquired an extent of Ac.O2-O2 gts., of patta lands classilred as Single Crop Wet lands (SCW), Double Crop Wet (DCW) larrds arrd a-[so dry lands in several survey numbers at Mutyampally, hamlet of Amrad village for the purpose of providing house sites to Weaker Sections of people. A draft notif,rcation under Section 4(l) of ttre Act was issued on O1.O3.1994 and O3.O3. 1994. Alter conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition oflicer has passed an award granting compensation of Rs.2O,OOO/- per acre for the land to an 2 AKS,j & ETD,I LAAS No.375 2005 extent rr1' l\r: Q-25 guntas in survey Nos.696 and 699 (DCW and SCW) rd l2Rs.12,1OO/- for the lands to an extent of Ac.Ol-l7 guntas in survey Nos.TOO and 7O2 (dry landsl. f\ggrjeved by tlle said avzard, the claimants have frled a petition for r,:fert:nce and the sarne \va.s r e ferred under Section 18 of the Act :o the reference Court.

4. 'I'ht: reference Court has framed the lbllowin5r issues for considr:r;rtic n: "1. Whether t]le clairnants are entit-Ied to enhanc('ment of compensation and consequential benefits thereon under tJle ar:re r cled LA Act and if so, at what rate? 2 1'o what relieP"

5. Ilelbrr: the reference Court, the claimants got exr.rmined PWs 1 to 3 irnl got marked Exs.Al to A3. On behall'of lhe r espondents, RWI was examined and Ex.Bl was marked.

6. ElaseC on the evidence on record, the referencr: Court has enhan<:er1 l.lrr: compensation to Rs.S7,OOO/- per acre fcrr the extent of Ac.C-25 63rntas in survey Nos.696 and 699 anct @ Rs.34,2OO/- per acle for [he extent of Ac.Ol-l7 guntas in suney I,los.7OO and 7O2, ol ttre rcquired lands apart from the other stritutory benehts. Aggriever: by the said enhancement, the Lana Acquis ition Offrcer has prt:fcrred the present appeal. { 3 A(s,J & ETD,J IAAS No.375 2m6

7. Heard the submissions of learned Government pleader for the appellant and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 5, 6 andZ.

8. l.earned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation by re\ring on Ex.Al without any other corroborative evidence. He further argued that the rands under Exs.Ar to A3 are not sim ar for assessing the market value of the acquired lands and that the reference Court has enhanced the compensation without following any settled principles of assessment.

9. The learned respondents counsel, on ttre other hand, submitted that the reference Court has passed a well reasoned order and thus has prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, ttris Court frames the following points for determination :

1. Whether t]le claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the judgment and decree of the reference Court need arry interference?

3. To what relieP 4 AKS,J & ETD,J tas No 375 2006

11. POIN',t'NO.1: a) PW 1 is the claimant No.S. His evidence revealr; that their lands aLrr: lertile lands and tllat they used to culiivale turmeric, maize, clrile s, vegetables, paddy and other cornm€rcial crops and that their village is just 4 KM away from Nizamabrrd and that the land urrder Ex.Al is similar in nature, fertility an<l po rentialiQr to that of acqrr.red land. b) I perru;al of Ex.AI sale deed reveals that, land to an extent of 16 \'z 1+url-as SCW in survey No.836 situated at Arrrad village was sold rcr z. value of Rs.22,000/- i.e. @ Rs.53,333/- p:r acre. c) FW3 is a resident of Manik Bhandar village an<[ he is also one of the cllimants. It is elicited through him durirg his cross examinat:ro: r:hat their village Manik Bhandar is abutting to NH-16 and Mrr[,arr.palli village and that Mutyampalli villalle is a hamlet of Amrad vi)la-61r. Thus, it is elicited that the sale de:d tLnder Ex.A1 can be consi<lered since it pertains to Amrad villa11e arrd the land acquired ha prpens to be in the hamlet (Muty'aml:all1 | of Amrad Village. d) FW2 is claimant No.2, his evidence runs in sim Llar lines to that of P'W I rrnd further he relied upon Ex.A2, ....,hich s a copy ol 5 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.375 2006 judgment and decree in O.P.No. 174 of 1988 dated 31.03.1992 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. e) A perusal of Ex.A2 reveals that the land was acquired at Vaddiatpally village neEr Niz-amabad for the purpose of construction of anicut, I-and Acquisition Officer has awarded @Rs.13,600/- per acre for SCW and DCW lands and the reference Court has enhanced it to RS.2O,OOO/- per acre. f) Ex.A3 is tJle copy of judgment in O.p.No. i64 of l9g4 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad for the lands that were acquired for the purpose of house sites in Manikbhandar village and the r.eference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,OO0/- per acre i.e. Rs.7/- per square yard, along with other statutory benefits, while the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.17,O00/- per acre. It is elicited through the evidence of pW3 that Manikbhandar is abutting Mutyampalli village, where at the land in the present case was acquired. g) It is elicited through the evidence of RWl that tJ e distance between Mutyampalli village and Vaddiatpally is only lKM and the distance between Nizambad and Mut5rampalli is about 5 KM. 6 AKS.J & ETD,I IAAS No.375_2006 h) !trr:r':trre, on an overall perusal of the evidence of PWs I to 3, RW- anC Exs.Al to A'3, it is held that the ar:quired lands in the presen[ (:ari(: are similar to those under Exs.Al to A3. l'hr: le nd under Ex.A2 pertains to the Vaddiatpally, which is i) just I KM rr,,rray from the acquired land and it is furrier elicited that thr: le.nd that is acquired under Ex./ 3 ;tertains to Maniktrharular village, which is at around 1 XM e,nd it is evident that ttre la:rds fetch more value. The referr:nce Co urt's award under E;xs;. A.2 and A3 attained finality. Further. the Land Acquis .ti,:rn [)fficer has not disputed with regard tc the distance of these 'rilla[]r:r; and it is further elicited through the r:vidence on record that. {he lands acquired are near to Nizarr aba,1 town and tJrey w:rr: E(r(luired for the purpose of house sites. j) 1'h,::rr: trre, considering the evidence on recor<l, it is held that the comper sration awarded by the Land AcquisitiorL Oflicer is meager anC it has to be enhanced. It is further h(,ld that the award prrs s e d by the reference Court grantin6l cc mpensation @Rs.57,O0O /- per acre for the extent of Ac.O-25 gunt€rs in survey Nos.695 an,i 699 and @ Rs.34,2OO/- per acre fc'r tl,.e extent of Ac.O1- 7 grr.tas in survey Nos.7OO and 7O2 of the acqrrired lands, is *.e[ u:;tif t:d. Point No. I is answered accordingly. 7 A(S,J & ETD,J [A-AS no.375 2006 L2. PIOINT No.2: ln view of the reasoned hnding arrived at point No.l, ttris Court holds that the judgment arrd decree of the reference Court do not need alty interference.

13. POINT NO.3 In the reslrlt, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005 passed in O.p.No.46l of 1995 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. (with 2.TwoCCstotheGPFORAPPEALS,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat cords, if any) Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri V. Manohar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/gh HIGH COUR.'T DATED:061AY2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.ii7l5 of 2006 4n 1 ,-\t ; SIAft: 4^t 'i,'-1 'r- ):. t. rr l J\ tt15 i :...rl DISMISSIhIG OF THE APPEAI- vU /, C 'f \( ) [ 3445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARgH "rwd-iHousAND AND TWENTY FlvE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSiiCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S. No: 375 of 2006 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer (R D'O)' Nizamabad ...AppellanUReferring Officer AND

1. Gupathi Ashanna, son of Sayanna (died)' 2 Nvalkanti Gangaram, s/o Ramuloo, aged 48 years' R/o Mutyampally H/o - Amrad. (died) LR R-8 3. Rodda Sayanna, S/o Lasmanna (died) LR R-5 4. Gundla Oddenna, S/o Laxmanna' (died) per LR R-7 5. Rodda Monali, S/o late Rodda Sayanna, aged 46 years' R/o Mutyampally H/o 6. Gopathi Laxmi, Wo Gopathi Ashanna' aged 45 years' R/o Mutyampally H/o Wo late Gundla Oddenna, aged 60 years Fi/o Amrad. '. Amrad. Gundla @ Meesala Gangawa' MutyamPallY H/o Amrao' Nvalkanti Gowri, Wo'. NYalkanti MirthyamPallY, H/o.Amrad' 7 I Gangaram, Age not known' Rl/o' ...ResPondents/Claimants IS"J""."sSXFl[;',:#:1,'X[3-?dttlL:iit;!iTtSiSi"Iiif"Ji'TlJ:"'? 2006. Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 16-08-2005 passed in OP'No 461 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge' Nizamabad' This appeal corning on for hearing and upon perusing the (lrour ds of appeal' the Judgment and L)ec n:e of the court below and the material p aper s in the case and upon hearing the .rrguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the appell;rnt and of sri V. Manohar Rao, lcutr;r:l for the Respondents. This Court doth Or,lerr and Decree as follows: 't.Thattheapprealbeandherebyisdismissedupholdingtheudgmentand decree datecl .l(i 0B-200S passed in O.P.No.461 of 1995 by the learned I Additional Di$tr ct Judge, Nizamabad; and

2. Thalthere shall lt,: no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR- --- L l 'i SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additiorzrl t)istrict Judge, Nizamabad 2. Two CD Copie:; I I HIGH COURT DATED:0610312A25 DEGREE LAAS.No'375 of 2006 DtSMtSStNG rf,F THE APPEAI. v f {