The Land Acquisition Officer v. 1. S.VENKATESWARLU

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleaseJ to recieve the Registered Document No.41 of 1991 dated:18 0i.199i on the file of the Joint Sub-Register, Huzur Nagar, in the present Appeal. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003 (CMP. NO:1 7078 0F 2003) Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, trre Hign court may be pleased to condone the delay of 87 days in seeking extension oitime for oepositing Jecretat amount as ordered in cMp 1373112002 in AS sR 49213t2002 DT.;3-7_2002 against OP No. l0/99. l.A. NO: 2 OF 20 0 ASMP. NO:131 55 0F 2004 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, irre uign court may be preased to stay all further p roceed ings_p_ursua nt to the decree passed in op No. 116 r2ooo, dated 21 3.2000 including Ep No. 89 of 2002 on the fite of ll Addt. Senior civir judge, Vijayawada pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Gp FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondents 1-'3 : M MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.558 of 2OO4 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui Eacla) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the ActJ is preferred by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer, Miryalguda, aggrieved by the order and decree dated

21.O3.2OO2 passed in O.P.No.116 of 2000 by [he learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Relerence 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.05-09 guntas in survey No.425 of Huzurnagar village was acquired for .providing house sites to the poor inhabitants of Madirenigudem H/o.Huzurnagar village. The draft notification under Section a(1) - of the Act was published in the Gazette on

10.03.1993. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.28,2OOl- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application and the same was ) ) 2 AKs,] & EID AS No.558 2004 referred under Section 1g of the Act to Judge, Mirvalgucla. the Court of Senior Civil

4. The case of the claimants is that there are .i0 rice mills, oil mills, dal mills, stone crushing mills and several cement factories ih the vicinity of acquired lands and that the Land Acquisition Officer failecl to take into account all these factors while fixing the mariiet value and has awarded a meager amount.

5. The Land Acquisition Ofhcer has fiied a counter before the reference Court denying the averments of the claimants ancl stated that after due enquiry he has awarded the said amount u,hich is reasonable and that the claim needs to be rejected.

6. The Reference Court consideration: has framed the following points for ., Whether rhe marke-t value awarded by the L.A.O. ;";i.'::Tf '"'"':f T:*oi[' ;i ffi i

1. .r n the award under rel m:L:. :lf,;: 2. , Whe ther the claimants are cn ha nc^emenl of the compensa tion Lao? lf so. lo rrhat ra te?,, entitied to seek awarded by the

7. Before the Refercnce Court, the claimants got examinecl pWs 1 & 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A.9. On behalf of the respondent. Ex.C i lvas ma rked. I 3 AKS,] & ETD,I AS No.558 2004

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has awardcd a compensation @ Rs.50,O0O l- per acre, in addition to the statutory benehts. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the present appeal. g. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsei for the respondents

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has enhanced the compensation which is contrary to law and that the exhibits ltted by the claimants cannot be relied upon and that the said house plots covered under the documents are in Huzurnagar town, hence, the same cannot be considered. He further argued that except these documents, the claimants failed to place any other evidence on record, and that the relerence CourL has erred in enhancing the compensation. He further argued that the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has considered 543 sale transactions and hxed the market value, hence, the appeal may be allowed.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the reference Court has passed a well reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the same, he therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. I ) krq* I 4 AKs,J & ETD,J AS No.558 2004

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following pornts for consideration: 1 2 a Whether Lhe claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of the referencc Court need any interference? To what relieP

13. POINT NO.1: a) PW1 has reiterated thc contents of his claim petition before the reference Court in his evidence. The evidence of pW2 reveals that he had hve acres of land in survey No.292 and 301 of Huzurnagar village, which is very near to the acquired lands and that he prepared a layout and converted it into house plots along with his brothers and that :r[ the plots were sold @ Rs.6O/ to Rs.70/- per square yard. Exs_Al, AS, AZ and Ag are the sale deeds which were executed by his brothers and himself in favour of the purchasers under the said layout. Nothing material could be elicited during their cross examination to discredit their evidence. The sale deed filed under Exs.A7 and Ag also appear in the sales statistics at Sl. Nos.44 1 and 454 wherein the lancl was sold at Rs.2,90,400/ - per acre. b) It is elicited from the sales statistics referred by the Land {euisition Olficcr in his award that at Sl.Nos.24 to 27, 3l and 32, 5 AKS,J & EID,] AS No.558 2004 thc lands in survey No.195 were sold in the year 1990 -L (iRs.7,64,720 f - per acre, which pertain to dry lands; at Sl.No. I 15 it discloses that the dry land in survey No.190/AA was sold @ Rs. 12,1O,000/ per acre in the year l99O; at Sl.Nos.120 and 164, th.c sale price was Rs.12,1O,OOO f - per acre in survey No.196/A and 190 in lhe year 199 1; at Sl.Nos.204 and 218 in survey No.196/E the sale price is shown as Rs. 12,17,8O6/- and Rs.12,10,10O/- in the year 199 1. There are several other sales transactions at Sl.Nos.318 and 319 revealing the said ligures. In the year 1993 also therc is one sales transaction at S1.No.503 revealing that the land in survey No.196/U the sale price is shown Rs.12,10,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Offrcer has not considered the said sale transactions which are reflected in his an,ard. The reason stated by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer for discarding the said sales transaction is that the lands covered by [hese sales are small extents and thus, he has discarded the same. c) It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Land Acquisition O;fficer, Reaenue Dintsional O;fJicer u. L.Kamalannmal and ?ris hala Jaln o. State o;f UttaranchaP. I(t9981 ' (201q6 scc 47 2 Supreme court cases 385 6 AKS,.J & ETD,] AS No.558 2004 d) In Land Acquisition ofricer, Revenue Divisional officer,s case (supra 1), the Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: "6. ...rvhen no salcs oI comparable lald were available where largc chunks of land had bcen sold, erre., ta11a t.ansaJtion" in respect of smaller extent ot land could be taken rndicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts oi tana Uy mating appropriate deductions such as f,,. aJuelopmeni of the land by providing enough space lor roads. "a*..",- J.arr. expenses involved in information of a tayout, lump su.rrpajment as also the waiting period requircd for sc*ing rhe .iies Lrrai *'outa be formed,. "o," J." e) In Trishala Jain u. State oJ Uttaranchal,s case (supra 2), the Hon'ble Apex Court hcld as under: "The sale instances even oI smaller plots could be considered lor determrning the market value of a f"ig.. deduction unless, therc r,rru .n-prrobility ir., pot.rrtioi, ,iiiiza-tio.,, amenities and infrastrucrure with hardly l"v ai"iir-i-". 'o.,-"r.n principJes each case rvould have to be considered on its own merits". o-fi;;;;h:r-" "f,r,_rf. " f) Thus, in the light of the said decisions, the reason for discarding the highest sale exemplar by Land Acquisition Officer is not proper. g) It is clear from the evidence of pWs. 7 and 2 that the land has good potentiality and that it is surrounded by the industrial and commercial establishments, several rice mills and oil mills and also that the land was being sold on yardage basis in the said village. Therefore, it is held that the compensation granted by the Land Acqu(sition Ofhcer is meager and thus, enhancemenr made by the ..f.."r}". court @ Rs.50,o0o/ per acre is well justirred. point No. 1 is answered accordingly. -t' 7 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.558 2004

14. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned hnding arrived at Point No'1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference. 15 POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 21.03.2002 passed in O.P No 1 16 of 200O by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda. No costs' Misccllancous Peti[ions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. 2. One CC to SRI IM MADHAVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies W HIGH COURT DATED:04104t2025 JUDGMENT AS.No.558 of 2004 .1 /|t1.' ,1i:) il-) I ..1- . ': .. 1i sit ltil5 i.'jr l' )' --i 't,.--;:, 'lr l * ...=^- .-.:- lr l. -rJ::i-ts..,, -!:::i:: :_.. . -.,.,.'. DISMISSTNG THE APPEAL u.'en P.-\e HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APP EAL SUIT NO: 558 OF 2004 Between The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda . AND ...APPELLANT

1. S.VENKATESWARLU, S/o.late Narasimhaiah R/o.Madirenigudem, H/o.Huzumagar, Nalgonda Dt. 2. S.Ramulu, S/o.late Narasimhaiah 3. S.Thirupathaiah, S/o.late Narasimhaiah 4. S.Laxmaiah, S/o-late Narasimhaiah 5. S.Venkateswarlu, High Court of A.P.Hyderabad. 6. S.Sreenu, Rep by Pbulic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad' 7. S.Thirupathaiah, S/o.v.Varamuni Reddy R/o. 79, R.S.Mada Street Tirupati Chittoor District. B. M.Gopaiah, S/o.Chinna Ramaiah (Ded per LR 13) 9. M.Chinna Ramaiah, S/o.Chinna Muthaiah '10. M.Achaiah, S/o.Chinna Ramaiah 11. M.Saidulu (DIED), W/o Ashaiah Rl/o Edul Nagul Palli (V)' R.C. Purem (M), Medak District 1 2. M.Ademma, W/o.Saidulu 13. Nimmala Eshvaramma W/o Sidulu, aged 50 yrs., Rl/o Medirenigudem' (R-13 brought on record as LR of deceased respondent No.8) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Judgment and Decree,, j:jilrT:t^r:":ilTsition Acr, 18e4, asainst the 6 of 2000 on the filed of the. senior civil Judge, Miryalaguda. rr.#,1iu"1rlH::T;fr:lc olror heanng and upo tr**;j[il?#.x,#:+].:ffiti?l:.il:r:ffi [t[Hli.'i:T;l:::ix,ffi l; for the Respondent'-' "PPLals for lhc Appeliant ,na oi sri That this Court doth order and decree as follows: 1 . That this Court wh m, o e i n ; u-o-s;; e;i' 5 j :ff;IS,,il: il*:: |:# rm e d a r r th e a verm en ts

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII To, ; *::"J8ffiIi"'se' Narsonda 11r ,.'"ii#?['",1'+H1'l SECTION OFFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 DECREE AS.No.558 ot 2004 DISIWSSINGTHE APPEAL qcof"A t(r- fr---idas