The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. M.Pratap Reddy, S/o Janga Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ Agriculture Smt. M Swaroopa, Wo Pralap Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Occ Housewife. M Sujatha, Wo Malla Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ Housewife, All are Rl/o 10-2013, Rallaguda Village, Shamshabad Mangal, Ranga Reddy District. .RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 31- 12-2013 in LA.OP.No. 1324 of 2008 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989 cum Vll Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District including the execution of the proceedings in E.P.No. 10 of 2O16 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases lnde1 SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989 cum Vll Addt. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the LA Appeat. IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to modify the order to deposit 50% of enhancement granted bv this Hon'ble Court by order dated 10.07.2018 and the order copy was received on 23.07.2018 in LAAS.No. 366 of 2014 in the court of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 cum Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar as LAOP.No. 1321t of 2008. Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. D. Madhavi (Standing Counr;el for HMDA) Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. Pulla Reddy The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI'MAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.366 of 2Ol4 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt- Justice nrumdla Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the ta.nd Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the ActJ is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit-I, Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.12.2O13 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1324 of 2008 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's & ST's (POA) Act - cum - VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as'the reference CourtJ.

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.22.28 guntas was acquired in Survey Nos. 194' 271 to 278 and 281, situated at Shamshabad Village for formation of Outer Ring Road Phase-I, from Gachibowli to Shamshabad. A draft notihcation was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 24.05.2O06 and was published in the Gazette a-nd in the local news papers' After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded-Rv12OO l- per square yard for non-agriculture lands and I \ 2 AKs,J & ETD,', LAAS No.366 2014 @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre was fixed for agri:ultural lands. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filrrd a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of VII Additional District & Sessions Judg,e, Ranga Reddy District. 4 . The reference Court has framed the follor ging points for consideration: 1 Whether the enhancement of claimants are en titied compensation as pra red?

2. To what relieP"

5. Before the reference Court, the claimants go1 examined pW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of t)re respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the refer:nce Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1200/- per squ rre yard for the acquired lands, apart from the other statutory berr:hts. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Special Deputr Collector has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of Smt.D.Madhavi, lt arned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for l-he respondents. 3 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.366 2014

8. karned counsel for the appellant has argued that the reference Court has viewed the entire case in a wrong perspective and that it has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and that the compensation was enhanced without any rationale. She further argued that the reference Court has committed an error by relying on Ex.A1, as no person connected with the said document was examined and that the property under Ex.Al is situated in a different survey number. l,earned counsel further contended that the extent of land covered under Ex.Al is only 3,402 square yards which cannot be compared with that of large extent that is acquired in the present proceedings i.e. Ac. 17.14 % guntas. Therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the reference Court and conlirm the award passed by the Land Acqursition Ofhcer. g. The respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the total lands that were acquired had high potential and that there are many layouts and ventures coming along the ring road and that the acquired lands would fetch more than what is awarded by the reference Court. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: I 4 AKS,] & EID,J LAAS No.366 2014 i 1 2 Whether the claimants are not e; rtitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order a-nd decree of the triz I Court need any interference?

3. To what relieP 1 1. POINT NO. 1: a) A perusal of Ex.Al shows that M/s.Indu Pro ects Limited as a GPA holder of Smt.Jasoda bai Bhangdiya, has sr,ld the property on 09.9.2005 in favour of M/s.Shell India Marketing Private Ltd., admeasuring 3402.78 Sq.yards in survey No.674 (part) situated at Shamshabad village for a consideration of Rs.3,6O,OO,OOO/ -, which comes to Rs.10582/- per square yard. b) PW 1 is the hrst claimant. His evidence r eveals that the acquired lands are abutting the NH-7 leading frorn Hyderabad to Bangalore and that they have a potential for usag: of commercial purposes and that it is in the vicinity of Internaticnai airport. He further deposed about the sale transaction under Ex.A1 and that the said transaction was prior to the date of e cquisition. He further submitted that they have purchased the acrluired land with a fond hope of constructing commercial complexr s in future but since, they have been acquired, they need to be compensated and that the amount awarded by the LAO is very r eager. But for making mere suggestions that were denied, nothin3 material could be elicited during his cross examination to discrerlit his evidence. t l\ 5 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No.366 2014 He has also relied upon Ex.A2 which is a copy of decree in LAOP No.702 of 2010, wherein the reference Court has granted compensation of Rs.5,500/- per square yard, for the land at Shamshabad that was acquired by the Special Deputy Coilector Unit-I, ORR project HUDA. c) RWl who is the Land acquisition Officer has admitted during his cross examination tl.at the land is facing the National Highway leading from Hyderabad to Bangalore and that it was developed as plots by Sama Enclave for residential purposes and that there is a HUDA colony at Shamshabad prior to the notihcation of the present acquisition. He further admitted that Ex A1, the sale deed was referred in the award but was not considered stating that it relates to the transaction which is prior to the notification. d) Thus, it is elicited through RW 1 that the lands that are acquired have high potential and that they are very near to the Shamshabad Airport and also the National Highway. The transaction under Ex.Al was referred in the saies statistics under Ex.B 1 but he has not taken into consideration, which is not proper. The sale is dated 09.09.2005 while the notification is dated 24.05.20O6. The sale statistics which fall within three years prior --te- notihcation are to be considered while awarding compensation 6 AKS,I & ETO,' LAAS No.366_2014 e) In this regard, it is apt to refer to a decisi,>n of the Apex Court in Ram Kanuar a. Sta.te of Harydnar anrl in Mehrawal KhewaJi Tntst a. State of Punja[2, it is held as unCer: "When there are several exemplars with r eference to similar lands, it is the general rule .hat the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied th rt it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considc red and accepted." 0 In P.Ram Red.d.g a. Land Acqulsltlon Officer, Hgderaba&, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh opined that "Nr_ rmally we have to take into consideration the sales of three years prior to the notil-rcation". g) Further, in Ravtnd,ar Ndro:ln and d.nother a. tlftton of Indid, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the principles for hxation of market value with reference to comparable s: les have to be followed to minimize speculation and the requisit :s for a saie to merit consideration as a comparable sale were held as follows:- "1) When sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notiflcation under Section 4 (I) of l,and Acquisition Act, It should be a bona fide transaction, It should be of the land acquired or of the lan I adjacent to the land acquired, and It should possess similar advantages." ,21 3) 4l ' (zozo) tt scc zzz ' (zotz) s scc +:z ' tgg3(z) ut t " (zoos)Ascc +sr 7 AKs,J & ETD,.J IAAS No.366 2014 h) In the present case, the sale is within a reasonable time i.e. within one year and the land is said to be in the close proximity to the acquired land and also there is no dispute about the transaction under Ex.A 1 with regard to its genuineness and it is already brought on record that RW t has admitted that the acquired land has high potential. i) Thus, the oral evidence of the claimants coupled with the exhibits, it is held that the reference Court is justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.1200/- per square yard for the acquired lands, apart from the other statutory benefrts. j) It is further contended by the appellant counsel that the lands of small units cannot be taken as comparable statistics while awarding compensation to larger extents. k) It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Land Acqulsition Otficer, Reuenue Dlvlsional OfJicer a. L.Kannalammas and Trislro,la Jain u. State of UttaranchaF. l) In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer's case (supra 3), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "6. ...when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts ) '(1998) 2 Sipreme Court Cases 385 u (zort) o scc az .1 , .' AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.366 2014 8 of land by making appropriate deductions srch as for development of the land by providing enough spa;e for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in information of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed'. m) ln Trishala Jain a. State of Uttaranchals case (supra 4), the Hon'b1e Apex Court held as under: "The sale instances even of smaLler plots could b,: considered for determining the market value of a Iarger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potentiat, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case woul( have to be considered on its own merits". n) Thus, u,hen no olher comparable document; are available, the sale transactions involving smaller extents c f land can be considered by allowing reasonable deductions, if tht y are similar in potentiality, utilization, amenities and infrastructr rre. Based on the said principle, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.120O/- per square yard for thc acquired lalds, apart from the other statutory benefits. o) In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Offrcer is very meager and the enhancement made by the reference Court to the extent of Rs. 12OO /- per square yard, apart from thc other statutory benefits, is well justihed. Point No. 1 is answered ac rordingly. f*;,"- t 9 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.366 2014

12. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned linding arrived at Point No.l, this Court holds that order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 37.12.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1324 of 2OO8 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's & ST's (POA) Act - cum - VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / i SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, (with records, if any) 2, One CC to Smt D. MAdhavi (SC FOR HMDA) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A. Pulla Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VTYDL , f HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.366 of 2014 o THE.S T.q (' 1 3 li,il ?i25 o L1, DISMISSING LAAS WITHOUT COSTS * 1/t 2 t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH 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 ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 366 OF 2014 Between: The Special Deputy collector, L. A., Unit-|, Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER AND

1. M.Pratap Reddy, S/o Janga Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ Agriculture 2. Smt. M Swaroopa, Wo Pratap Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Occ Housewife 3. M Sujatha, W/o Malla Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ Housewife, All are R/o 10-20/3, Rallaguda Village, Shamshabad Mangal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPON DENTS/CLAIMANTS Appeal filed under section 54 of L.A.Act against the Order and Decree Daled. 31-12-20 13 passed in L.A.O.P.NO. 1324 of 20OB on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. D. Madhavi (Standing Counsel for HMDA, Advocate for the appellant and Sri A. Pulla Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. ,6' - This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 2 To, 1 2 That the LAAS NO. 366 of 2014^ be and hereby dismis ;ed upholding the order and decree dared 31 12.201i pr.-.J;"i X6.p.fuo. r324 of 2008 by the learned Speciat Sessiols Jucige f"i iiiur of"i",es under SC,s & i s i i c t' ri" s!. i3,s .r, o g e, Ri n g a H lr'r J "r?$1 ff 1 ." HTyJ: l o o t i o nJ That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. - -o " //TRUE COPY// SD/.K,SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR Sr:CTtOilf OFFICER The Special Sessions Jrrrtne. fe1 Trral of Cases under SC & ST (pOA) Act lil%:,|#l Additionar oiitrict ana su;.io;;J,;;;l nIi ru Reddy Di6rricr, Two CD Copies vt{ P ' .i HIGH COURT DATED: 06/03/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.366 of 2014 DISMISSING LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 4 /./ 5,/rk,