The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : GP FOR APPEALS Counsel fortheRespondents : SRI S. SURYAPRAKAS6 RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.3863 of2OO4 JUDSIIEUT: (per Hon'ble Srnt. ..,rusfice Tinunqla Deui Eada) This appeal, under Scction 54 o[ the Land Acquisition Ac[, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is prelerred by the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, aggrieved by the ordcr and decree daLed 06.O2.2OO4 passed in O.P.No.53 of 1997 by the learncd Senior Civil Juclgc at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Relerencc Court').

2. For convenience and olarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed beforc thc Relerence Court.

3. The lacts ol the case in brief.1re thal the land to an extent of Ac.04-05 guntas situatecl at Sirsed Village in Jammikunta Mandal of Karimnagar District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of IR of 10R of DtrM-16. The draft notificatron under Section 4(1) of the Act rvas published in the Gazette on 31.07.1990 and in other news papers on29.I1.1990 and 09.11.1990. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officcr (LAO) has fixed the value at Rs. 1O,2OO/- per acre and he has also fixed the value of the lands @Rs.f ,5O0/ per acrc for the purposc of awarding interest from the \ 2 AK5,t &t]0.1 AS 1861 2004 derte of possession i.e-, 2O. i0.1985 to thc dtrtc ,r ttotificatirln i.e.

28.11.1990. Aggrieved by the said arvard, thc ciitir tants havc filecl a petition for rcl-erencc and the samc \\/as referrecl r -rdcr Sectiori L8 of the Act. to thc Court of Senior Civil .ludgc ai liar r rnagar. 4 . The case of the claimants is that the posst s: .on ol thc: lands u,as takcn on 20.10.1985, though the notificat on u'as issued subsequcntly. That the true markct valuc ol- he land under acquisition is ar:tually fetching Rs. 1,O0,00O/ pcr' r )re and tfrat the claimants ha',e filed their documents before thc l. rO l;ut tl-re LAO has not considr:red the same and the-v have ber:n l etting a f ield ol Rs.25,OOO/- per acre after deducting the expcns( s.

5. The LAO has hled countcr stating thal t 1e r:nquiry was oonductcd and that the LAO has considerecl tl r rcgistercd sale transactions during the period of three t,t'tLr s preceding the acquisition and has adopted the sale item No.il.l. which is similar in factors and thus, has arrived at a compensatio r of Rs.10,200/- per acre, therefore, the petitioners are n()l rntirled to any enhancement of compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Relr r :ncr: Court has framed the following point for consideration: ,l j I @ AKs,J & ETD,J A5 3861 2004 "Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not representing the true market value of the land and u'hether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation?"

7. At the time of trial, thc claimants got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to 43. On behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but trx-B1 award copy was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.25,OO0/- per acre, apart from granting statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferrcd by the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, LMD Colony, Karimnagar. 9 . Heard the submissions o[ learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the LAO has granted very reasonable compensation by considering the sales statistics in the said area and that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced any compensation. He further argued that the reference Court ought to have seen that trxs.Al and A2 marked on behalf of the claimants cannot be relied upon as they do not pertain to the lands in the vicinity of acquisition. He further argued 4 AKS,I & ETD,J AS 3863 2004 that Lhe reference Court ought to have seen that tlt : lands covered l^4 in OP No. 29 of 1996 granting a compensation ol 1.s.25,00O/- are lotally dilferent and that cannot bc equated u,ith t re lands under present acquisition. He therefore, prayed to set asll : the order and conllrm the award of the LAO.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on thc o her hand, has subrnitted that the reference Court has passed r ven. reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere rvitl the same, he therefore, pray'ed to uphold the order and decrec passed by Lhe relcrcnce Court.

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this () ,ur-1 6.u-"" rn. lollou,ing points lor consideration: 1 2 3 Whether the compensation alvardc < by. the reference Court is just and reasonable? Whether the order and decree of th: reference Court need any interfere nce? To what relieP

13. POINT NO.1: a) The contention of the ciaimants is that tI L ir lands fetch more value and they have relied upon Exs.Al an:t<l A2. The land sold under trx.A1 is in survey No.664/C @ Rs.s,O[ J/- per gunta. The evidence of PW2 is that he has purchased Ac. )-O2 guntas of 5 AKs,] & ETD,J AS 3863 2004 land under trx.Al and that according to him the land covered under Ex.A1 is at a distance ol 1 km from the acquired land. b) PW3 is the vendor of the land covered under Ex.A2 under which Ac.0-05 guntas of land was sold in survey No.2O6/C for a sale price of Rs.24,00O/- per acre. Admittedly, the lands under Exs.Al and A2 are at a distance of I '/z km away from the acquired land and the said sale is a small bit of land compared to the acquired lands in the present case. c) In the present acquisition, there are several sales statistics available as referred by the LAO. There are many transactions under which small bits of land are sold. Thus, it is elicited that the lands around the acquired lands are suitable for house sites and are sold in small extents. d) Further, the claimants have relied upon the order and decree passed in O.P.No.29 of 1996, which is hled under Ex.A3. In the said case, previous.ly a part of the land was acquired and separate award was passed on 26.07.1988 pertaining to the same village and the LAO in the said case has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,650/- per acre, while the reference Court has enhanced the same to Rs.21,OO0/- per acre. The said acquisition was in 1988, lphe present notification is in 199O, thus, relyrng upon the \ 6 AK5,.] & ETD,] AS 3863 2004 enhancement made under O.P.No.29 of 1996, thc 'eference Court has h-xed the rnarket value as Rs-25,000/- per acr( }:y considering 1O%o cscalation. Thus, the reference Court I-r:: ; given sound rcasoning for its enhancement and the said orders rnder Op No.29 of 7996 attarned the finality and hence, the same 'ras reliecl upon u.hile awarding compensation. It is also pertinent rl not-e that the land acquirecl under O.P.No.29 of 1996 and the lan :in the prcsent acquisilion belong to the same village and therefor c , it is hcld thar the ordcrs p:rssed by the relerence Court ,nhzrncing thc compensation to Rs.25,00O I - per acre is just and easonable and therc is no infirmity with the order. Point Nr, L is ansr,r,erecj accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2: In viern, of the reasoned finding arrived at t rint No. 1 , this Court holds that the order and decree of the refererr e Court do no[ need an1, interference.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upho ling the order and decree dated 06.02.2004 passed in O.p.No.53 rf 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs. I 7 AKS,I & ETD,J AS 3863 2004 Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District 2. One CC to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court, Hyderabad [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. S SURYA PRAKASA RAO Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies PSi, 4,/ HIGH COURT DATED:01 10812025 JUDGMENT AS.No.3863 of 2004 ($" (, l. ) k i, 1\ AIE U l- \h\ rst i:., i .'.;-1 ,'/ .a 4 '// DISMISSING THE APPEAL . E I I (^ \ t 1b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 3863 OF 2004 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit LMD Colony Karimnagar APPELLANT

1. B. Mallamma, Wo. Venkataiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) AND Karimnagar Dt.

2. D. Ailamma, Wo. Venkataiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

3. A.Raghupathi, S/o. Chinna Veeraiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

4. A.Radma Swamy, Sio. Ramaiah Agriculture RJo. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

5. B.Rajaveeru (Died), Hyderabad Regional Manager The Regional Manager Oriental lnsurance Co- Ltd Snehalatha Complex, 6-3-973, P-B.No. 45,

6. N.Veeraiah (died), Rep. by its Secretary, C. Gopal Reddy, 173, Malla Reddy Gardens, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

7. B. Veeraiah, S/o. Buchaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

8. M.Shankaraiah, S/o. Lasmaiah Agriculture R./o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

9. J.Chander Rao, S/o. Mallaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

10. J. Chandraiah, S/o. Odelu Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt. 1 1. B Kanakaiah, S/o. Ramaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

12. R.Rajaiah, S/o. Komuraiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

13. P. lsthari, S/o. Narsaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt. I

14. P.Ramaswamv. S/o. Narsaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla I Lmmilanka (M) Karimnagar D[. '15.D Ramjan, S/o. Masthan Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jamni rnka (M) Karimnagar

16. B.Veera Swamv. S/o. Chandraiah Agriculture R/o. Sirc I I Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt.' 17 B Odelu S/o. Mondaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jammi: nka (M) Karimnagar '18. B. Ramulu, S/o. Mondaiah Agriculture R/o. Sircilla Jamn anka (M) Karimnagar Dt. l9 B Ramuru, s/o ,aiah Agricurture R/o. sircira Jammiran< r (M) Karimnagar Dt. 20. K Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy Agricu t re R/o. Sircilla Jammilanka (lM) Karimna'gar Dt. 2l B Shekaraiah' S/o rate Rajaveeru Agricurture R/o. sirci I rJammiranka (M) Karimnagar Dt.

22. N.Venkatamma, Wo. late Veeraiah Agriculture R/o. Sirr;r la Jammilanka (M) Karimnagar Dt. Appeal filed under section s4 of Land Acquisition Act, ag i inst the Judgment and decree of the rearned Senior civir Judge, Huzurabad pasec r op No. 53 of 1 997, dated 06.02.2004. ...RESPONDENTS .9|DFR, This appeal comingon for hearing and upon p"r, ,ing the grounds of app.eal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower ciurt ina the n: teriir prpL*l"lh" P.ultlol and upon hearing the arguments of Government plead< r f", Arp"l;; ;;; of Sri S. Suryaprakasa Rao, Advocate for. nerponOenis That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'l That this court whire dismissing the appear uphord the orii rr and decree of the Lower Court.

2. That there shall be no orderas to costs. To The Senior Civil Judge. Huzurabad. Karim

2. Two CD Copies nagar Distri Ny I D/- MOHD,ISMAIL Pr:,uw REGTSTRAR strl t,o,,l cAl rC E [- HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 DECREE AS.No.3863 of 2004 DISMISSING THE APPEAL b