The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent : Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI AND HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.150 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishelty) Heard learned Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing the appellantland Acquisition Offrcer and Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondenf/ claimant.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Quli Qutub Shah Urban .Development Authority, Hyderabad, challenging the order dated28.02.2007 passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court') in LAOP.No.180 of 1993.

3. In nut-shell, the facts ofthe case are that land to an extent of 15,922 sqtare yards situated at T.S.No.75l1, Ward No.234, Block 'H', Khursheed Jah Devdi at Shahgunj, Hyderabad, belonging to the respondent/claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Govemment Junior College for Girls and also for *-flpyground; that Draft notihcation under Section 4(1) of the Act 2 AKS.J&LNA.J !.AAS.No 150 oJ 2009 was published on 04.06.1987; that possession ofthe acquired land was taken on 21.05.19911 that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on cirnducting enquiry,, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, vide proc.No.Bl/306/19g5, dated 21.05.1991, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 163/- .per square yard.

4. Tl're respondent/claimant received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under section l8 of the Act, and the same was referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as LAOp.No.l g0 of 1993 on the filer of the Reference Court. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalt of the responderLt/claimant, P.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.A_l to A-8 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, neither or:rl nor documentary evidence was adduced. 6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value o1' the acquired land from Rs. 163A per square yard to Rs.250/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory J AKS,J&LNA,J UAS.No. I 50 oJ 2009 benefits under the Act to the respondent/claimant. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. Learned Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case; that without there being any cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the respondent/claimant the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the land, super stnrctures and trees and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that taking into account the location of the acquired property being prime area, the Reference Court has rightly determined the compensation for the land, super structures and trees and therefore, there are no merits in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Offlcer has not chosen to adduce oral evidence and even the Award passed by him was not got marked on his behalf. On the other hand, the 4 AKS,J&LNA,J 'AAS.No.l50o_f20A9 respondenVclaimant in support of its claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired land, has got marked Exs.A_1 to A_g. 10. Ex.A-l is General power of Attomey, which is of no relevance, for determination of market value of the acquired propertv. Ex.A-2 is mortgage deed, dated 31.03.19g6, and as such, the same cannot be considered for assessment of market value of the acquired property. Exs.A-4, A,-6 and A-7 are sale deeds, dated

19.11.1987, 30.03.1989 and 29.8.19g9, respecrively. Notification under Seotion 4(1) of the Act was issued on 04.06.19g:-;thus, it is evident that Exs.A-4, ,4-6 and A-7-sale deeds are post_r.rotification sale deedsr and as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration for deterrrLination of market value of the acquired land. i 1. Now, the documenB tharremain on fetord aie ExS.A_3 and A-5-sale ,Ceeds. Ex.A-3 is sale deed executed in respect of a meager e>ltent of 2 square yards, therefore, the same cannot be given due weight and accordingly, it cannot form basis for determination of market value of the acquired land in the light of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Stare of J & K Vs. Mohd, Mateen ll/anit . I ir 9es1 o sr:c z:: 5 AKS. J & LNA, J LAAS.N1.l50 of 2009

12. Ex.A-5 is sale deed, dated 28.0'l'1986, whereunder an extent of48 square yards ofland situated at Shangunj, Hyderabad, was sold for Rs.48,000/-, which works out to Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Admittedly, the acquired property is also situated at Shangunj, Hyderabad. However, in view of very small extent of land covered under Ex.A-5 compared to large chunk of land acquired i.e., 15,922 square yards, the same cannot be taken as a representative sale deed for assessing and hxing the market value of the acquired land. However, the Reference Court has erroneously observed in the impugned order that Ex'A-5 is a post- notification sale deed.

13. Further, in the instant case, except Ex'A-5-sale deed' no other document is available on record. Even the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not marked, therefore, this Court is unable to verifu the details of the relevant sale deeds referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award in order to assess and hx the market value of the acquired land.

14. The Reference Court in the impugned order discarded all the documents marked on behalf ol the respondent/claimant' however, enhanced the market value of the acquired land fixed by 6 ,{KS.J&LNA.J ,-AAS t\o t50 oI 2009 the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.l63l_ to Rs.250/- per square yard, by making an observation that the acquired land is situated in a developed area and that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to take note of the said aspect. 1 5. In lhe absence of any relevant document produce<l before the Reference Court either by the respondent/claimant or the Land Acquisition Officer in order to asscss and fix the market value of the acquired land, the Reference Court has to do some guess work and accor,Cingly, the Reference Court has rightly taken into account the fact that the acquired land is located in a developed area and having re1;ard other factors in general, enhanced the market value of the acquired land fixed by Land Acquisition Ofhcer flom Rs.163/- per square yard to Rs.250A per square yard, which is just and reasonable in view oftotality of facts of the case. 16. As regards the compensation granted by the Reference Court forLhe superstructures, it is bome out from the record that admittedly, Govemment College and High School were being run in the acquired property as on the date of initiati.n of the acquisition proceedings, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly concluded that the acquired property is in good condition as on the AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No.ts0 o12009 date of acquisition. Further, admittedly, the acquired property was the piilace of a king by name Khursheed Jah Bahadur, which is adomed with rich fumiture and elevation and as such, granting compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- for the suPerstructures which include the main building known as Khursheed Jah Devidi (bungalow) adorned with rich fumiture, which is antique, and two out houses, by the Reference Court is quite just and reasonable and the said finding of the Reference Court warrants no interference by this Court. 17 . With regard to enhancing the compensation for the trees existing in the acquired land from Rs.4,410/- to Rs.6,000/- by the Reference Court, it is to be noted that admittedly, there are I 5 trees existing in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for the said trees based on the estimation prepared by the Deputy Tahsildar, who is not a competent authority for fixing the value of the said trees. Therefore, though the respondent/claimant did not choose to adduce any evidence as regards the estimation of the said trees, in view of the fact that the said I 5 trees are well-grown and gefting usufruct, the Relerence Court has rightly enhanced the compensation for the trees from \ ( I 8 AKS. J & LNA J i .4AS.No 150 of2009 - Rs.4,410/- to Rs.6,000/- which is just and proper and ils such, the said finding of the Reference Court does not u,anant any interferer ce by this Court. 18. Irr the light of the foregoing discussion and reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court the appellant failed to point out any illegeLlity or infirmity in the impugned order of the Reference Cout warranting interference by this Court. 19. A,:cordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 20. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO tr REGISTRAR JAN !.1 TION OFFICER To, 1 The l"rSenior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records) 2. Two CCs to GP for Appeais, High Court'for ttre Siate of fet-hgana at 3. One CC to Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copi,as Hyderabad. [OUT] Njb/gh @; ,.{\' e $l'Ar€ o,a I 2lr ttB ?SE i) .\ l t- ,'^ "t'.! HIGH COUR'T DATED:1010112025 JUDGMENT .+ DECREE LAAS.No.150 of 2009 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS { \> IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE IENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE LAXMI NARAYANA AL]SHETW L.A.A.S.No: 150 OF 2009 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Quli Qutub Shah Shah Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUReferring Officer AND The Cyrus lnvestment Pvt. Ltd., Situated at Esplanade House, Wouldy Road, Fort, Bombay-400001. Rep. by GPA Sri P.S. Prasad, aged about 56 years, R/o. Secunderabad. ...Respondenb/Glaimant Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Order and decree dated 28.02.2007 passed in L.A.O.P.No. 180 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the 1st Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and ihe material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of GP for Appeals, for tt€ Appellant and of Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the LAA{I be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SEb+loru orrrceR To, bNj

1. The lstsenior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copie,s o -i- _:__:=:=> HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 DECREE LAAS.No.150 of 2009 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS r2\0;,{v