The High Court · 2025

Judgment

8. Baisani Rajam, S/o. Rajanarsu, Age 53 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Bandi Bhoomaiah, S/o. Gangaram, Age 55 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Bopddukuri Raji Reddy, S/o. Rajaram, Age 38 years, R/ o- Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Balsani Rajanarsu. S/o Ra1am, Age 54 years. R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Vempelli Suresh, S/o. Ralaram, Age 30 years, R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Vempelli Hanmandla Goud. S/o. Linga Goud, Age 41 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Pendyala Bhoomaiah, S/o Lingarah, Age 60 years. Rio. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) Gandenaboina Nadrpi hlallaiah, S/o Pedda Komuraiah, Age 50 years, Ryo. Vempet (V) Metpalli ( ltrl ).

9. Uthkam Venkati, Sio. Ramulu, Age 43 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). 10 Sogala Thukkaiah, S/o Mallaiah, Age 40 years, R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). 11 Medipelli Jeevan, S/o Lingarah, Age 28 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). 12 Gajula Radha, Wo. Ramesh, Age 20 years. R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). 13 Gadenaboina Goduri Komurarah, S/o Nadipr Komuraiah, Age 60 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) '14.Madam Raju, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age 50 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). l5.Kummari Borraiah, S/o. Sayebu, Age 65 years, R/o. Vem:et (V) Metpalli (M). 16.Jenaia Gangaiah, S/o. Pedda Gangaram, Age 40 years, lt/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

17. MunurguriGanga Rajam, S/o. Shivaiah, Age 55 years, R/:>. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

18. Munuguri Chinna Rajam, S/o. Shivaiah, Age 50 years, R/). Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) '19. Puli Narsu, Wo. Rajam, Age 36 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Nletpalli (M).

20.Mittapelli Bhoom Reddy, S/o. Nadipi Rajam, Age 30 year:;, R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

21. Erra Boddu Ganga Ram, S/o. Gangaram, Age 60 years, ll/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

22. Porumalla Narsaiah, S/o. Narsimhulu, Age 70 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) 23 Godishela Rajaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Age 52 years, R/o. Ve npet (V) Metpalli (rvr) 24 Godishela Peddulu, S/o. Venkaiah, Age 52 years, R/o Ve'mpet (V) ltletpallt (M)

25. Erra Maruthi, S/o. Chinna Gangaram, Age 26 years, R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

26. Gadeboina Erra Mallaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 44 years R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

27.Baddam Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age 3'l years. R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) 28 Gaddam Mallaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 42 years, R/o. Vem ret (V) Metpalh (M) 29 Yelala Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Ganga Reddy, Age 28 year s R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

30. Gaddam Sayamma, Wo. Ramulu, Age 40 years, R/o Ve npet (V) Metpalli (NI).

31. Myadari Raja Gangaram, S/o. Gangaram, Age 50 years. ll/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). Karimnagar district. 32 The Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector. L A Unit, S C Railway, Karimnagar. ...Respon(rents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant :SRl M L ALI

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 31 : SRI A KRUPADHAR REDDY The Court delivered the following: Judgment /i I i t ! HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMAI-A DEVI EADA I-AAS.No. 1 0F 2015 I t IDGMENT: (hr Hon'bh 5i la'n., ttt'htt.mt Kn'tar 't turiti) \flhen the mawer is taken up for hearing, leamed counsel appearing for the resPonden$ had submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in LAAS.No.316 of 2015, dated21.09.2024. I-earned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the said fact. Following the judgment dated 2l-Q9.2024 in LAAS.No.316 of 2Ol5 and for reasons alike, this Appeal is also dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, i[ anv, pending shall stand closed' SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Jagtral 2. One CC to SRI M L ALl, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI A KRUPADHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies At)K/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 I JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRI\FTS LAAS.No.131 ot 2015 ToR TiE-i Il 1 B rUN ?025 7 * \-\. ';7;" -1i ,:2 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS @ s\ 4 I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KTJMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.316 ol20l5 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Juslice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Sri Anurag Rachapally, leamed Standing Counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, Iearned counsel lor respondent Nos.l and 2/claimants and leamed Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of thc Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the beneftciary of the acquired lands aggrieved by the order and decrec dated 02.06.2014 passed in LAOP.No.33 of 2013 on the file o[ the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial (hereinafter referred to as "the Ret'erence Court')

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, South Central Railway, Karimnagar, the private pafta [ands admeasuring Ac. l. I I guntas situated in Sy.Nos.ll89 and ll90 of Vempet Village, Metpally Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to respondent Nos. I and 2/claimants were acquired for the purpose of lormation o[ ncw 2 AKS,J&LNA,J UAS.No 316 of 2015 broad gauge single railway line from Jagtial to Errapur (Phase-III); that Draft Notification under Section 4(l) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 02.01.2012; that Draft Dectaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette,rn 21.01.2012; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 2:1.02.2012; and that after lollowing the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition ()fficer passed Award No.l of 2012, dated 08.08.2012, frxing the nLarket value ol the acquircd lands @ Rs. 1,90,0001 per acre.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants 'eceived the compensati()n granted by the Land Acquisition Jfficer under protest ancl sought ref'e rence under Section 18 of the Act and thc same \\'as retcrred to Civil Court and numbered as L.\OP.No.3l ol 20 I i on thc li lc o f the Reference Court.

5. Befbrc the Reference Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2.'clainrarrts, P.Ws-l and 2 were examined and Irxs.P-l to P-4 werc rnarked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-l was cxamincd and [:xs.R-l and R-2 were marked.

6. 'l'he Rcf-erence Court, on appreciatio[ of tht: evidence on record. pa:scd the impugned order answering the Ref'erence in 3 AKS,J & LNA, T I-aAS.No.t t6 of 20tt favour of the claimants and enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,84,000- per acre as against the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Offrcer @ Rs.1,90,000/- per acre Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging rhe said order.

7. Leamed Standing counsel for the appellant, which is the beneficiary of the land under acquisition, contended rhat the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Exs.A- I to A-4, particularly Ex.A-4 without any basis; that the Reference Court has tixed the market value of the acquired lands on mere assumptions and presumptions though no cogent material was placed by the claimants and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and the same needs to be set aside by allowing this Appeat

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2/claimants contended that Reference Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and rightly assessed thc compensation for the acquired land, which is just and reasonable and therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed

9. The contention of leamed Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands I I I I l : i 1 t: 4 AKS.J&LNA.J UAS.No.3 t6 o/20ts But, as seen from Ex.R- I _Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands and even in the impugned ordor, the Reference Court has neither dealt with the said aspect n,rr awarded any compensation lor the wells and trees existing in thr: acquired lands. Therefore, the said conrention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is, in tact, contrary to record and ther:fore, merits no consideration.

10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is r:vident that the Reference Court has placed reliance mainly on Ex.p_4_registered sale deed, datcd 1g.09.2007, whereunder an extent of 150 square yards of land situatcd in Sy.No.320 of Vempet Viilage was sold and the sale considcration thsls6f u/srks to Rs.7,26,()00/_ per acre. The claimants rrav'e ars. got examined the vendor of Ex.p_4 as P.W-2. He deposed ro rhe eflect rhat the lands covered by Ex.p_4 and the subject acquired lands are similar in nafure anrj are abutting each other. I I is cv.idcnce remained unrebutted. It is t.lris document that the Rel-erencc Coun has adopted for fixing the market value of the acquired Iands 5 ,1KSJ&LNAJ UAS No.l l6 oI)0t5 I l. Exs.P-l to P-3-regsitered sale deeds which were relied upon by the claimants to buttress their claim for enhancement of compensation, all pertain to the year 2007.|t is to be noted that in the present case, the draft notification under Section 4(1) ofthe Act was published on 09.01.2012. Thus, it is clear that the documents virle Exs.P-l to P-4 relied upon by the claimants pertain to five years preceding the date of4(1) notification. Here, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NOIDA v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs and otherst, wherein it is hcld as under: "The sale deed must have been execttted at the time proximate to the date of the notification. "

72. Following the said proposition, it is to be held that much credcncc cannot be given to Exs.P-l to P-4 for fixing the rnarket ,,'aluc of the acquired lands, though altogether they cannot be brushed aside in the facts of the given case, particularly when thc genuineness of Ex.P-4 was proved by examining the vendor thereof as P.W-2. In fact, in Ex.R-1-Award, the Land Acquisition Otllcer has rc t-erred to the same Sy.No.320, in respect of which a sale dccd datcd 20.05.2010 was executed for the land admeasuring 2566 I l0l.l SCC OnLine SC l69l 6 AKS,J&LNA.J U,tS.No.l16 of 20ls guntas for Rs.39,000/- which works out to Rs.7,35,620/_ per acre, which is about t /z years prior to 4(l ) not ification. It is also relevant to note that from Ex.R_l_Award, it a;tpears that no sale transaction has taken ptace in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.l lg9 and 1 190, out of which the subject lands were acquired, within the relevant period of rhree years preceding 4(l) notification. Therefore, the sale transactions of a_djacent Surv:y Numbers of the same village have to be considered for determination of market value of the subject acquired lands. 13. In such circumstances of the case, for delermination of fair and reasonable rnarket value ol the acquired lan,ls, this Court has scrupulously perused Ex.R- l-Alvard, which goes to show that the Land Acquisition Otficer has analyzed the sale stirtistics pertaining to as many as 200 salc transactions of Vempet Village for the period preceding lhree years fiom the date of issuance of a(l) notification. Howev.er. he proceeded to discard all the 199 sale deeds on the grounds yr_-., some ret)ect higher ra;.es, some reflect lower rates and sorne relate to sale ol houses and house sites. The Land Acquisition Ot'(icer is jusrilred in discardinil the sale deeds which reflect lou,er ratcs since it is settled principl,.r of law that the 7 AKS, T& LNA. J DUS.No.J l6 of )015 sale deed showing the highest value should be considered as exemplar sale deed and adopted in fixing the market value of the acquired Iands.

14. Further, Ex.R- I -Award also shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded certain sale deeds merely on the ground that they reflect higher value. It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab2, wherein it is held as under: '' Wren there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the e.renstlars. iJ it is satisfied that it is a bona Jide transottion, has to be considered and accepted.

15. In the light of the said judgment, this Court holds that the said reason given by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R- I - Award that cenain sale deeds are discarded since they reflect higher valuc is illegal and contrary to the settled principle of law. Further, a pcrusal of Ex.R- l-Award goes to show that most of the sale deeds pertaining to the year 2010 are executed in respect of house sites ol Ventpct Village. Further, as stated earlier, the claim of the claimants coupled with the evidence of P.W-2 makes it clear r (20r2) 5 SCC .1ll 8 AKS.J&LNA.J LAAS.No 3t6ol20t5 that the acquired lands have potentiality for being converted into house sites. Therefore, fiom this, a presumption car be drawn that the acquired lands of the claimants also have potent ality for being converted into house sites, as claimed by the claimants Though it is the case of the claimants that prior to issuance of4( t) notification, the acquired lands were converted into house sites, without there being any evidence in that regard, the same canno be accepted. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Olficer has totally erred in discarding the sale deeds which were executed in respect of house sites, wherein the highest value thereof works rut to about Rs.1,46,786/- per acre. If the same is taken as exemplar sale deed, the claimants are entitled to compensation afier dedur:ting 1/3rd of the said amount towards developmental cirarges since the acquired lands are agricultural lands, whereas the said exempla. sale deed is regarding house site. By carculating thus. trris Cor rt is of the considered view that the market valuc- fired by the Reti:rence Court for the acquired rands is not on higher side and in ract the same is fair and reasonable in the lacts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforestated. 9 AKS, J & LNl, I LAAS.No 316 ol2015

16. In the light of the above discussion and reasons, this Court sees no merit in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

18. As a sequel, interim order dated 07.10.2015 passed in LAASMP.No.l062 of 2015 stands vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, ilany, shalI stand closed. ABHINAND KT]MAR SHAVILI, J I-AXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY, J Dated:2| .09.2024 IN THE HiGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACQUISITIO N APPEAL SUIT NO: 131 OF 2015 Between: Union of lndia Represented by the General Manager, South Central Railways, Rarl Nrlayam, Secunderabad-500 071, A.P. ... Proposed parties/Appellant Beneficiaries AND 1 Baisani Rajam, S/o. Rajanarsu, Age 53 years, R./o. Vempet (V) Metpalh (M) 2 Bandi Bhoomaiah, S/o. Gangaram, Age 55 years, R-/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

3. Bopddukuri Raji Reddy, Sio. Rajaram, Age 38 years, Rl/ o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). 4 Balsani Rajanarsu, S/o. Rajam, Age 54 years, R"/o. Vempet (V) Metpalh (N/) 5 Vempelli Suresh, S/o. Raiaram, Age 30 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) 6 Vempelli Hanmandla Goud, S/o. Linga Goud, Age 41 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) 7 Pendyala Bhoomaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Age 60 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli ([,]) 8 Gandenaboina Nadipi Mallaiah, S/o. Pedda Komuraiah, Age 50 years' R/o. Vempet (V) Metpallt (lvl).

9. Uthkam Venkati, S/o. Ramulu, Age 43 years, Fl/o. Vempet (V) Metpalh (M). 10 Sogala Thukkaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 40 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) 11 Medipelli Jeevan. S/o. Lingaiah, Age 28 years, Rl/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

12.Gajula Radha, Wo. Ramesh, Age 20 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M) 13. Gadenaboina Goduri Komuraiah, S/o. Nadipi Komuraiah, Age 60 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalh (M)

14. Madam Raju, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age 50 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (lU) 15 Kummari Borraiah. S/o. Sayebu, Age 65 years, RJo. Vempet (V) Metpallt (M).

16.Jenaja Gangaiah, S/o. Pedda Gangaram, Age 40 years. R/o. Vempet fl/) Metpalli (M).

17. MunurguriGanga Rajam, S/o. Shivaiah, Age 55 years, R,'o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). lS.Munuguri Chinna Rajam, S/o. Shivaiah, Age 50 years, R'o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M). '19. Puli Narsu, Wo. Rajam, Age 36 years, R/o. Vempet (V) lrletpalli (M).

20.Mittapelli Bhoom Reddy, S/o. Nadipi Rajam, Age 30 yea,s, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

21.Erra Boddu Ganga Ram. S/o. Gangaram, Age 60 years. R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

22.Porumalla Narsaiah, S/o. Narsimhulu, Age 70 years, R/c. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

23. Godishela Rajaiah, S/o Venkaiah, Age 52 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

24.Godishela Peddulu, S/o. Venkaiah, Age 52 years, R/o. V'empet (V) Metpalli (M)

25.Erra Maruthi, S/o. Chinna Gangaram, Age 26 years, R/o Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

26. Gadeboina Erra Mallaiah, S/o. Komurarah, Age 44 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

27.Baddam Thirupathr Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, Age 31 years, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M)

28.Gaddam Mallaiah, S/o lvlallaiah, Age 42 years, R/o Venrpet (V) Metpalli (M).

29.Yelala Thirupathi Reddy, S/o Ganga Reddy, Age 28 ye:rrs, R/o. Vempet (V) Metpalli (M).

30.Gaddam Sayamma, Wo. Ramulu, Age 40 years, R/o. Vr:mpet (V) Metpalli (M).

31.Myadari Raja Gangaram. S/o Gangaram, Age 50 years R/o. Vempet M Metpalli (M). Karimnagar drstnct

32. The Land Acquisitron Officer, Special Deputy Collector, 1..A. Unit, S.C. Railway, Karimnagar. ...Resporrdents/Respondents Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A Act 1894 against the Judgmsnt and decree dated 02.06.2014 made in L.A O P No 32 of 2013 on the file of th-. court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Jagtial I This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of sRI lvl L ALl, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRIAKRUPADHARREDDY'AdvocatefortheRespondentNos.lto3landnone appeared for the respondent No.32. ,'/ ,'/ ;i This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the LAAS be and hereby is dismissed; 2. Thalthere shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Jagtial 2- Two CD CoPies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 DECREE LAAS.No.131 of 2015 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS l/ ,f