The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.69 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smr. Justice Tirumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 13, (for short 'the Act, 20 i 3 J is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metro Rail Project, GH},{C, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04.03.2O20 passed in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2Ol7 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabad (hereinafter relerred to as 'the Authorityl.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Authority

3. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition submitted by the Managing Director, Metro Rail Limited, Hyderabad, the land to an extenL ol 2996.6l Sq.Yards was acquired in different premises from Green lands to Road No.5 of Jubilee Ilills for the purpose of curves and bends in Corridor - III of Hyderabad Metro Rail. Notification under Section 1 1 of the Act was issued on 30.12.013 and l-he same was published in the I ? AKs,I & ETD,J LAAS No.69 2020 gazette on 07.O7.2074. The draft declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act was published in gazette on 06.01.2O15 and also in the news papers on 29.01.2015. The Special Depufy Collector, Land Acquisition, after due enquiry has fixed th9 market value at Rs.45,O00/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant has made an application for enhancement and the same rvas referred to Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabaci.

4. The case of the claimant before the Authorily was that hc is the owner of the property bearing plot No.g admeasuring 1,643 Square Yards situated at Road No.S, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad. His case is that he purchased the propert5r under two different sale deeds and that his land to an extent ol 9O4.lZ square yards was affected in the process of acquisition and he also claimed the damages for severing of his land into two bits, damages arising in consequence of acquisition of propert5r as he was compelled to change his residence, a claim for onetime hnancial settlement and also value of assets attached to the land.

5. Based on the above averments, the Authority has framed the following points for consideration: 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to ask for enhancement of market value of the land from Rs.45,000/_ per Sq.yard as lwglded by the Land Acquisition Officer to ns.OO,ObbT_ pe. Sq.Yard? 3 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.69 2020 2 3 4 Whether the Claimant is entitled to ask for Rs.6,O0,000/ - towards damages for making the land of Claimant of 1,643 Sq.yards in Plot No-8 into two bits in the process of .acquisition of 9O4.17 Sq.yards? Whether the Claimant is entitled to Rs.5,00,O0O/- towards damages caused in making the Claimant to shift his residence because of the acquisition? Whether the Claimant is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/ - towards the value of the things attached to the earth?

5. To what reliefi-)"

6. Before the Authority, the claimant got examined PW 1 and Exs.Al to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B 1 to B 15 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Authority has enhanced the value to Rs.60,O00 I per square yards, while disallowing the other claims of the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the Land Acquisition Off,icer has preferred the present appeal. B. Heard the submissions of learned Government pleader for the appellant and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned Government Pleader for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and decree of the Authority is contrary to the evidence placed before it and that the Authority has erred by enhancing the value of the land and that the Court has merelv \ 4 AKs,J & ETD,I LAAS No.69 2020 relied upon enhancement consider the cascading effect as the evidence lead by the claimants and failed to evidence of RWl. He further argued that the of land by approxim ately 2,So/o would have a would entail a further 1007o solatium, thereby resulting in the compensation being enhalced bv 5O% more than the original varue fixed. The craimant has claimed several other reliefs for damages without any basis and the said reliefs were rightly rejected by the Authority and in the same fashion the claim for enhancement of compensation ought to have been rejected by the Authority. He further pointed out to the hnding of the authority, wherein it has held that any property abutting the road up to a depth of 100 feet is to be treated as commercial property and that the said reasoning of the Authority is totally incorrect. He further argued that the property which was assigned with commercial market value by the Joint collector is situated at Krishna Nagar and comparing the same to the propert5z situated at Jubilee hills, which is residential in nature, is not proper. He further argued that the varuation certificate issued by the Sub-registrar cannot forrn the basis of enhancement or fixation of the value. He further argued that the Authority ought not to have considered the admissions made by RWl and that the said statements can be described as stray sentences ald thus, the Authority must not have based its decision on the said admissions. 5 AKs,J & ETD,] I-AAS No.69 2020 He further argued that the claimants have miserabiy failed to establish that they are entitled to enhancement of compensation but the Authority has enhanced the same by 25Vo which is not proper and has therefore, prayed to sel aside the judgment and decree passed by the AurhoritY.

10. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the Authority has passed well reasoned order and that it has considered all the aspects and the entire evidence on record and thereby has enhanced the compensation, he therefore, prayed to uphold the award and decree of the Authority' 1 1. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of comPensation?

2. Whether the Award and decree of the Authority need any interference?

3. To what relieP

12. POINT NO.1: a) The case of the claimant is that the property is situated in a commercial area and that it is a prime locality which was purchased by him from the Jubilee Hi1ls Co-operative House Building Society. This is further proved through Ex.B3 which is 6 AI(S,J & ETD,J LAAS No.69 2020 6 the Photostat copy of the sale deed executed by the Jubilee Hills co-operative House Building society in favour of the claimant for 1150 Sqyare yards in survey No.403/1 and another sale deed under Ex.B4 is to an extent of 493 square yards in the same survey number of Shaikpet vi age. The said documents were marked on admission by RW1. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the claimant over the acquired land. It is also an admitted fact that his land to an extent of 9O4.lZ square yards was acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer after obtaining the sales statistics and the preliminary Valuation Inspection note submitted by the Joint Collector, he has fixed the value of the land as Rs.45,000/_ per square yard. Out of the documents under Exs.B1 to B15, marked through RW1 only Exs.B3 and 84 are relevant and are discussed supra. b) The claimant has relied upon trxs.A1 to Al7 out of which, apart from the representations submitted by him to the collector and Land Acquisition Officer, the important documents which are reievant to decide the present issue are Exs.A6 and A7. Ex.A6 is dated 19.01.2015 which is the preiiminary valuation inspection note issued by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District showing that the market value of the property under acquisition is approved at Rs.6O,OO0/- per square yard for commercial properties. Tg:g1 _ 5 7 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No.69 2020 document is signed by the Joint Collector, Hyderabad and the recitals of the document reveal that he has inspected the properties under acquisition for curves and bends in Corridor-Ill on stretch from Green-lands to Road No.5, Jubitee Hills, situated at Yellareddiguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad along with the Special Deputy Collectoi (Land Acquisition) and he further mentioned in the said note that there are no sales in the vicinity of the properties under the present acquisition and the unit rate of the properties under present acquisition is Rs.60,OOO/- per square yard for commercial properties abutting the main road and out of local enquiry he found that the market value of the property is Rs.60,000/- per square yard and the same has been considered for fixing the market value of the properties. Thus, he has approved the value of the properties under present acquisition to be Rs.60,00O/- per square yard. Ex.A7 is the set of documenls obtained by the claimant under RTI Act, showing the Market Value Guidelines (Urban Properties) 2013 and at Sl.No.8, for the building of State Bank of Mysore at Srinagar Colony, the unit rate per square yard is proposed to be Rs.60,OO0/- while the prevailing rate is given as Rs.75,00O/- per square yard. These two exhibits proved the contentions of the claimant. ) o AKS,J & ETD,J I-AAS No.69 2020 r) c) There is no rebuttal evidence by the respondent to disprove the documents and it is also contended by the claimant that the Government has awarded Rs.60,000/_ for a portion of the properl5r where Hero Honda Show Room is situated and that it is just at a distance of 200 feet from the property belonging to the claimant and such facts were putforth during cross examination of RW1. RW t has admitted that the property where the Hero Honda Showroom is located is diagonally opposite to the property of the claimant and he also admitted that in trx.A7 issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, the proposed market value of the property up to State bank of Mysore was Rs.6O,OOOI_ per square yard. The contention of the claimant is that his propert5z is diagonaily opposite to the State Bank of Mysore. The said fact is admitted by RW1. It is also admitted that the market value of the said land is Rs'6o,000/- per square yard. Even as per Exs.A6 and AZ the same is reflected but the Land Acquisition Oflicer has awarded Rs.45,0O0/- per square yard to the claimant. lt is also not in dispute that the property of the claimant is situated at Road No.S of the Jubilee hills, which is a prime locality as on the date of acquisition and has a high potential for development. d) Thus, it is held that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the acquired property as Rs.45,0OO/_ is very 9 AKS,J & EID,] LAAs No.69 2020 low and has to be enhanced. Therefore, the authorit5r has rightly enhanced the rate to Rs.60,0O0/- per square yard. Point No.1 is answered accordingiy. 13, POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No. 1, this Court holds that the Award and decree of the Authority do not need any interference.

74. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the award and decree dated 04.03.2020 passed in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2017 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR h SECTIO FICER To, 1 . The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.69 of 2020 ( q f, o o 6 STAf.c t\ 17 JUN 2[25 lr' a,r 'l: _4. l- S ir .-:i-:-.,._ ^-i DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL I ,/z //,15 ,tl4 I s445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALADEVI EADA Between: L.A.A.S.No: 69 of 2020 The Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad. Land Acquisition, Ivletro Rail Project, G.H.M.C., ...Appel lanUReferral Authority AND K.Satyaraju, S/o.Keshavarao, R:/o. Sarabisa, Plot.No.8, H.No.8-2-2921821N8, Road No.S, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPetitioner Appeal filed under Section 74 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the Judgment dated 04-03-2020 passed in L.A.O.P,No.3 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou( and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellant and of Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed upholding the award and decree dated 04-03-2020 passed in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2017 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabad; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO GISTRAR JOINT i1 ,' 6t( orrrceR SE To, 1 . The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 DECREE LAAS.No.69 of 2020 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL / ,/l //