The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.1O4 of 2OL9 JUDGMENT: 0,er Hott'bLe Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the l,and Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the appellants - claimants, aggrieved by rhe order and decree dated 29.10.2018 passed in LAOP No.732 of 2073 by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred 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 lands situated at Shaikpet Village and Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad were acquired for the purpose of road widening from Quli Tutub-Shah Tombs to Old Bombal, Highway, on the requisition made by the Assistant Cit5r Planner, Circle-X, GHMC Hyderabad. A drafl. notihcation under Section 4(1) of the Act v/as made on 31.03.2011, which was published in the Gazette on 13.07.2011. The acquired properties which fall in Shaikpet Village and Mandal is 261.1O Sq.Meters or

312.35 Sq.Yards under premises No.8-1-14/ 1 (old) and, 14/20 (new) in T.S.No. lal 1/2 of Ward No.13 in block No.C. After 2 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104 2019 following the procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have liled a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

4. It is the case of the claimants that their land was acquired for the purpose of road widening in the year 2010 and that they were paid very meager compensation. Even in 2O10 the land value was more than Rs.24,000/ - per square yard and that the LAO failed to look into the sale transactions of 2010 though he referred to the sales statistics of 2OO7-2O10. It is their further case that the interest should be calculated @15% including the solatium which was not awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to them the market vaiue is more than Rs.40,OO0/- per square yard and in general the lands are getting sold @ Rs.75,000/- per square yard. Therefore, they prayed to fix the value @ Rs.7O,000/- per square yard.

5. The respondent has filed counter contending that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the correct value as per the procedure and after examining the prevailing value of the land and that it was reasonably fixed along with 3O% solatium and l2%o additional market value. \ l 3 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.1O4 2019

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the reference Court has framed the lbllowing point for consideration "Whether the compensation fxed bg the Lond Acquisition Olficer is not appropiate and the claimants are entitled for enttnncement of such compensation, if so to uhnl extent?"

7. Before the reference Court, the claimants got examined pwl and got marked Exs.Al to A4. on behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examinecl and Exs.Bl and El2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2O,000/- per square yard vide orders dated 2I.IO.2O18. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking further enhancemenl ol the compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the reference Court failed to consider the correct market value of the land that was acquired and ttrat even in Ex.Bl the sales statistics show the market value of the land in the vicinity to be more than Rs.23,000/- per square yard in the year 2OOT-2OOB and that the reference Court failed to consider the same. He further submitted that a 107o increase in appreciation of market value per year hss t^ I t ) ,t 4 AKS,.J & ETD,I LAAS N0.104*2019 be considered, if the sale transactions prior {o the acquisition are considered. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is very meager and therefore, prayed to set aside the same by further enhancing the compensation in this appeal' 1 1 . The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has in fact awarded more than that portrayed in the sale statistics and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order and decree passed by the reference court, hence, prayed to dismiss the aPPeal.

12. Considering the above rival submission, ttris Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the ciaimants are entitled for enhancement of comPensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need anY interference?

3. to what relieP

13. POINT NO.1: a) The case of the petitioners is that their lands acquired for the purpose of road widening are abutting the main road and that they fetch more value than that awarded by the reference Court' That the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the value of the sale on

15.04.2010 into consideration, in which the rate was @Rs' 15,000/- p.. fqrr.. yard and has awarded the same to their lands but he II I I I 5 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.104_2019 failed to "61sidcr the provisions of the Act or the judgments of High Court and the Ilon'ble Supreme Court' b) PW1 in his evidence has stated that the market value for registration is more than Rs.40,000/- per squarg yard' PWl is the owner of the acquired property and petitioner Nos'2 and 3 are his children. As per his evidence, the land vaiue was Rs'24,630/- per square yard iIr the year 2OO7 as per Ex.Bl referred at Sl'No'1 of the sales statistics and that the Land Acquisition officer has failed to consider the same, but has taken a lower value of sales statistics dated 15.04.2010 @Rs.15,OO0/- per square yard' He relied upon Exs.Al and, A2 which are the sale deeds dated 26'12'2007 and 3 i .03.2OO8 resPectivelY. c) A perusal of the said documents reveal that they pertain to the sale of arpartments and not open land' Therefore, they cannot be compared, to arrive at a correct decision about the value of the land that is acquired. d) A perusal of Ex.Bl, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer shows that Exs.Al and A2 are also reflected in the sales statistics but since they are not similar in nature to the land under acquisition, he has not considered the same. The same cannot be found flault with. PW 1 further relied upon the market value certilicate is fi1ed under Ex.A4 dated 24.O6.2Ot6. The basic value 6 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104 2019 registers are maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty and hence, they cannot be taken as the guidelines for arriving at the correct market value, as they have no statutory basis. e) Ex.A3 is the letter addressed by pWl to the Land Acquisition Officer, dated 25.03.2010, wherein it is stated that an extent of 1056 square yards out of the total extent of 2440 Sq.yards was sold to Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1995 and that he has again sold another extent of 885 Sq.Yards in the year 1996 and that the market value was Rs.20,00O/- per square yard but the said sale deeds are not filed in the Court, therefore, Ex.A3 also cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, the documents liled by the PW1 do not aid in proving his contention that the value of the land is around Rs.SO,OOO/ per square yard as stated in his chief examination. f) The evidence of RWl reveals that the possession was not taken prior to passing of the award and that it was taken only after the award was passed and therefore, question of l1o/o interest as claimed by the claimants does not arise. C) A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that considering the registered sale deeds dated 04.12.2OO8, 1O.O7.2O09 and 1S.04.2O1O, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value as Rs. 15,O00/- per square yard. It is pertinent to mention here that the draft 1 AKS,J & ETO,J l-AAS No.104_2019 notiflcation was made on 3 1.03.20 1 1 and there is no sale data availabie between the statistics relied upon by the Land Acquisition OIficer under Ex.Bl and the date of notification. Since, there is a gap of more than a year, some amount of appreciation has to be added to the value of the land while fxing.the'compensation but the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the same. h) In Radhrr Mud,allgar a. Special Tahslld.ar (Land Acquisitlon), T.N.H. Boardl, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the annual increase of 7Oo/o to lSVo has to be allowed by the Court where the record reflects increasing trend in the sale price of the land. i) In Ramrao Sho;nkor Tapase v. Maharashtra Industriat Deoelopment Corporation and. other*, the Honble Apex Court held that instead of lOo/o cumulative increase, the High Court ought to have added 12%o increase cumulatively for about three years. j) Applying the said principle, it is opined that some amount of appreciation has to be added to the value that is reflected in sales statistics as on 15.04.2010 that is @Rs. 15,0OO/- per square yard. Considering Lhe said principle, the reference Court has enhanced ' zorr 1z1to toa sc1 '1zozz1z scc sor I \ I I I I I AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104 2019 8 :. a the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per square yard, which appears to be justified. Apart from the said enhancement, the reference Court has also allowed the statutory benefits' Hence, it is held that the order and decree passed by the reference Court is well reasoned and that the claimants are not entitled to any further enhancement. Point No.1 is answered accordingly' t4. 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. t5 POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree d.ated 29.1O.2018 passed in L.A.O.P'No '7 32 of 2013 by the iearned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. t I Miscelianeous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER to' , . -n" Xl Additional Chief Judge' City Civil-Court' Hyderabad ;. cj;;?ci;satvtvrx JAIN Advocate [oPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FoR AI#'EAG' ;6 [ourt t6r tne state of Telangana at 4. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUTI ADK/DL ;/ HIGH COURT DATED:071t)312025 JUDGMENT+DEGREE LAAS.No.104 of 2019 e< l \\?, \\ +- \\uzr, Tffi JUN o 1t I t< Dt C DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 7 // 4 / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH 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 UISITION APPEAL SUIT N : 104 19 Betlveen:

1. Budhavataram Raju Aged about. 83 years H.No 101, Vijaya Towers, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-73.

2. G. Usha Rani, Aged about.53 Years, H.No. 307, Vijaya Towers, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-73.

3. Venkateswara Varma, Aged about 58 Years, H.No 501' Taranga Towers, Sri Ram Nagar, Near RajeerTnagar, Hyderabad-45. ...Appellant Nos'1 to 3 AND The Spl. DY. Collector, L.A., GHMC, Hyderabad. The Land Acquisition Officer. ...Respondent Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 against the Judgment and decree dated 29. 10.2018 made in L.A.O.P.No.732 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 Suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate for the Appellants and of GP FOR APPEALS for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: j 'l . That the LAAS be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 29.10.2018 passed in L.A.O.P.No.732 of 2013 by the tearned Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad ; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK/DI- ,/ HIGH COUTIT DATED:071t)U2025 DECREE LAAS.No.104 of 2019 DISMISSITVG THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS * 1-Z {/g /+4-