The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following Judgment: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO.762 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui Ead.a) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, t8g4, (for short the Act) is preferred by the appellants claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.10.1994 passed in O.P.No.4S of 1992 by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge at Nagarkurnool {hereinafter reflerred to as 'the Reference Court).

2. For convenience and clarity, 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 land to an extent of Ac.O4-35 cents situated in Sy.No.559 of Gangaram village belonging to the claimants was proposed to be acquired to provide house sites to the pcople belonging to Backward Classes and to remove congestion in the said village. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the notification undcr Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act have been published in the Gazette on 2o.O2.lgg2 and

29.02.1992 respectively. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has granted an amount of Rs.3,2OOl- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made 2 AKS,J & ETD,J A5_762_1998 an application under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the learred Sub-Ordinate Judge at Nagarkurnool.

4. The case of the claimants is that their land fetches high value as it is abutting the road and it is a well developed area with transport facilities, schools, post office etc., and it is connected to the road leading from Wanaparthy to Hyderabad and that it has high pot:ntial for development in future and is suitable for house sites anrl that they used to fetch an income of nct less than Rs.8,OOC/- per acre per annum after deducting agricultural expensesi and that if they sold outside, they would get Rs.8O,00O/- per acre.

5. The LAO has filed his reply statement denying the averments of the claimants and has stated that he has rclicd upon the sales; statistics available in the village and that even though the land in question is abutting the village and is suitable for construction of houses, the village is in developing stage and thus, the samr: will not get a rate of Rs.30/- per square yard and that the award fixed by him may be conlirmed

6. In view of the above pleadings, the reference Court has framed the following point for determination: 3 AKs,J & ETD,J AS_752_1998 "Whetlrcr the claimants are entitled to ltaue anq enh.ancement in the compensation and if it is so to uhnt ertent?"

7. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.Al to A3. On behalf of the respondent, RWl was examined and Ex.B 1 was marked. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,OOO/- per acre, apart from awarding statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions Sri M.Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the respondent

9. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the land of the claimants is in a well developed area and is suitable for house'sites and has atl the amenities, thus, their lands fetch more value than that awarded by the LAO and the reference Court. He further submitted that the reference Court has enhanced only to an extent of Rs.8,OOO/- per acre, while their lands would fetch around Rs.8O,OOO/- per acre as they are suitable to be sold on yardage basis. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation further. l 4 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_762_1998

10. The learned Gcivernment Pleader has argued that the orders passed Ly the reference'Court do not need any interference and that in ferct the LAO has fixed the compensation based on a sound reasonin;g and the reference Court has enhanced it to Rs.8,O00/- per acre which needs no further enhancement, he therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 1 1. Ba,sed on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1 2 Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief)

12. POINT NO.1: a) Ex.Al is the registered sale deed pertaining to 04.1O.1983 and Ex.A:2 pertains to 03.07.1987. Both the sale deeds cannot be relied upcn as they do not fau within three years prior to the acquisition. However, Ex.A3 pertains to a sale transaction dated

24.O9.19!)O, which can be looked into. b) A perusal of Ex.B 1 shows that the claimants have projected a price ol'Rs.3,SOOl- per acre during the course o[ enquiry and thus, the LAo has fixed the value @Rs.3,2oo/- per acre, while the 5 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_762_199E sales transactions relied upon by the LAO shows that at Sl.No.48, a sale transaction is reported vide document No.1372 of L99O @ Rs.3,14O/- per acre in survey No.SSO/A. Ex.Bl further reveals that the sales transaction rnentioned at Sl.Nos.29 and 79 were discarded by the LAo on the ground that the lands under the said items were having less Bhaganas than the Bhaganas of the land in question. c) The reference Court has also considered the other sale items wherein the transactions mentioned at St.No.29 disclose the sale @Rs.4,2OO/- per acre and at Sl.No.79 it is Rs.8,OOO/- per acre. The said sale transactions pertain to the same village. Therefore, by taking into consideration the highest sale transaction at S1.No.79, the reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land and has enhanced the compensation to Rs.S,OOO/- per acre, apart from awarding statutory benefits. Therefore, the reference Court was right in considering the highest sales statistics available during the relevant period and that were referred by the LAO, while the LAO has discarded the said statistics without any justification. Hence, there is no infirmity in ( ( the orders passed by the reference Court and thus, it is held that the order of tJle reference Court enhancing the compensation to 6 A(S,J & EID,J AS_762_1998 Rs.8,O00/- per acre is found to be just and reasonable Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. I3. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No. 1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference. t4. FOINT ItO.3: ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and dccn:e dated O4.10. 1994 passed in O.P.No.48 of 1992 by the learned S ub-ordinate Judge at Negarkurnool. No costs. Mis;cellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/, P.GOWRISHANKAR EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Subordinate Judge at Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar Dist. ( with records ) 2. One CC tc SRl. M. RAMALTNGESWARA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI 3 Two CCs lo GP FOR APPEALS ,High Court for the State of Tetangana.

4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:01l08lil025 + DECREE JUDGMENT AS.No.762 of 1998 i S O O 2 ? JrN s?$ * * DISMISSING THE APPEAL STJIT WITHOUT COSTS a^ !N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry F|VE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SU lT NO: 762 OF 1998 Between: 3 District years,Occ:Agriculture,and House hold, Resident of Gangaram.

1. G.Mallaiah S/o Sayanna,Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gangaram, lrtahabub Nagar 2. Lachamma (Died), Wo.Laxma Reddy, ^ aged about 65 . Narayana Reddy . Tirupati Reddy . Venkat Reddy (Died), Per LRs 6 to 9 . G. Manamma, 6 7. Shirisha, aged 11 years R/o Gangaram Mahabubnagar Dist. (minor rep' by 4 5 their mother Petitioner No.6)

8. Saiprasanna, aged 7 Years R/o Gan by their mother Petitioner No.6)

9. Hareeswar Reddy, aged 9 Years R/o rep. by their mother Petitioner No.6) garam Mahabubnagar Dist. (minor rep. Gangaram Mahabubnagar Dist. (minor ..APPELLANTS ( Claimants I Petitioners ) ( Appellants 3 to 5 were brought on record as LRs of the deceased hpiEiant No. Z vade Court Ofuer dated 12'03-99 in CMP No.7304 of {e99) ( Appellants 6 to 9 were brought on record as LRs ofthe deceased h-p'tEUint-No S viOe Court Oifer dated 22'11-1999 in CMP No. 12526 of rssg ) (Appellant Nos. 7 to 9 being minors, represented by A.6) AND The Land Acquisition Officer, ( M.R.C. ), Bijinapally, Mahabubnagar Dist. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the order and decree passecl on 04-10-1994 in O.P.No.48 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nagarkurnool. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and r.1p6n hearing the arguments of Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy , Advocate for the Appellants and Govt. Pleader for Appeals on behalf of the Respondent . This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the ,{ppeal be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 04-10-199'4 passed in O.P.No. 48 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge at lrlagarkumool.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. -lo S . P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUW REGISTRAR C'T'ON OFF'CER l. The Subordinate Judge at Nagarkurnool, Maha 2. Two C.D.Copies nagar Dist. Kul/[)S I. HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/l!025 DECREE AS.No.752 of 1998 DISMISSING THII APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS u la