The High Court · 2025

Order

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO.5.24 ()F 2004

JUDGMENT: @er Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the ActJ is preferred by the appellan: - claimant in o.P.No.15o of 1989, aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 25.1O.2002 passed in O.P.Nos.146 of 1989, l4't of 1989, l4g of 1989, 150 of 1989, 151 of 1989 and 152 of 1989 by the learned Prl.senior crvil Judge, Ranga Reddy District aL N.T.R.Nagar (hereinafter rcferred 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 Acquisition officer has acquired an extent of Ac.05-o6 guntas of land at Karmanghat for formation of inner ring road by the I-tuDA in survey Nos.7/1, 9 and 10. The draft notification under section 4(1) of the Act was pubtished in the gazette on 27.o4.1983. Alter conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition officer Lras fixed the compensation @ R.s.1o/- per square yard, out of which, l/3rd was deducted and fixed Rs.6.67/- per square yard as the compensation. A$ieved by the said award, the appellant has madr: an application : 2 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524 2004 ,1 under section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the learned Prl.senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar.

4. The case of the claimants is that the market value of the land acquired is Rs.200 l- per square yard and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition officer. is very low and that deducting I lg,a from the value assessed by him is very unjust and that the land acquired is for the purpose of formation of inner ring road and therefore, the deduction was not proper.

5. The reference court has framed the following points for determination: "7. Whether the claimants are entitled for enlnncement of compensatton as praged for anil tl si to what extent?

2. Whether the deduction of 1/ 3,a area b just and. proper? 3. To what reliefs, if ang?"

6. Before the reference court, pwl was examined and Ex.Al was marked. on behalf of the respondent, RWl was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the reference court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.15/- per square yard but rl3,a was deducted by the reference Court for developmental purposes and consequently, it was arrived at Rs.lo/- per square yard apart -/ / 3 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004 from awarding the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri K.someswar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government pleader for the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has subrr.itted that the orders of the reference court are contrary to law and that the reference court has erred in fixing the compensation @ Rs.l0/- per square yard. The reference court ought to have considered the sale transaction under Ex.Al under which the land was ,sold @Rs.Tal- per square yard and that the land under Ex.Al is in the vicinity of the acquired land. He further submittJd that the reference court ought not tc, have deducted I l3ra of the compenrsation towards developmental charges, as there is no need for development as already the acquired land is in deveroped area. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the reference court by allowi;eg this appeal.

10. The learned Government pleader has submittr:d that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the reference court and that the reference court has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards developmental charges and fixed the compensation and therefirre, prayed to dismiss the etppeal. 4 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004 ,'

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the deduction of I l3rd cornpensation towards developmental charges in the acquired land is improper?

4. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference? To what relief.2

12. POINT NO.1: a) It is an admitted fact that the land is acquired for the purpose of formation of inner ring road by HUDA at Karmanghat village. The evidence of PWl is to the effect that' the acquired land fetches around Rs.2OO/- per square yard. He relied upon Ex.Al which is a certified copy of sale deed. b) A perusal of Ex.Al reveals that the land in survey No.67 is made into plots and that plot No.143 is sold @ Rs.75/- per square yard. PWl deposed that it is adjacent to the land acquired. From the evidence of RWl, it is elicited that sale transaction dated

01.09.1982 and another sale transaction dated 09.02.1983 were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the market value at Rs. 1O/-, out of which I l3'a was deducted' The compagStive sales statistics reflected in Ex.Bl reveal that by a ,l 5 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524 2004 document dated 01.09.1992, land admeasuring 60 square yards was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard in survey No.31 I / I and, 3ll12. Another sales statistics is dated o9.o2.19g3 under which s00 sq.yards was sold @Rs.30/- per square yard. Thes;e transactions are prior to the notification and can be safely ieliec upon but the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the same. c) considering the said evidence on record and the sale deed filed under [Dx.Al dated 30.06.1982 and also the sales statistics reflected in Ex.Bl, it is held that the value fixecl by the Land Acquisition officer is lesser than to which the claimants are entitled. Therefore, the reference court has rightly arrived at fixing the compensation @ Lsl- per square ya5d which appears to be well justified. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2: a) The reference court has deducted L /gra towards developmental charges, after fixing the value @ Rs..L5/- per square yard. : b) It is tc, be noted that if the land is acquired fo,: the purpose of house site, then it requires a lot of developmented activities and thus, of 1/3.4 is justified. {educr-ion \ I : I i :l 5 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No,524_2004 r\ c) In this case, the acquisition was for the purpose of formation of inner ring road and that the land acquired is at Karmanghat area, which was already developed in the year 1982. Ex.Al reveals that the sale was under yardage basis for house sites and also Ex.Bl, the award copy reflects the sales statistics.during the preceding three years showing that the land had high potentiality. d) In U.M. Ramudu & Ors. a. RDO cum LAO Adoni and othersl, it was held by a Bench of this Court that the lands are lying in well-developed municipal area, having facility of access to main road, electricity, water lines, etc. but nonetheless, when vast extents of lands which are acquired and are to be developed into a layout, by providing house sites to the iveaker sections, 1/3'd value has got to be deducted. e) [n view of the law laid down in the above cited decision, it is held thatdeduction of 173'a is proper, wherein the land is acquired for house sites but in the present case, the land is acquired for formation of inner ring road, for which the I l3'a deduction is held to be improper. Therefore, it is held that there is no need for deduction of 1/3rd compensation towards developmental charges. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. I t zoto scc onLine Hyd 131 7 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

14. POINT NO.3: In view ol' the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the order and decree of the reference Court need to be modified with regard to the 173.a deduction made by':he reference Court and that the compensation arrived at by the reference Court @ Rs.15/- per square yard is upheld but the find.ing vvith regard to the 1/3rd deduction towards developmental charges is set aside, as a result of rvhich, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.15/- per square yard for the acquired lands.

15. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by sefting aside the order and decree dated 25.10.2OO2 passed in O.P.No.15O of 1989 by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddv District at N.T.R.Nagar, with regard to the l'1g,a deducl-ion towards developmental charges and accordingly, the claimant is entitled to the compensal-ion of Rs.15/- per square yard for the a,:q11lred lands. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall sturnd closed. //TRUE COPY'/ SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR EI To

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. One CC to SRl. K. SOMESWARA KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS ,High Court for the State of Telangana.

4. Two CD Copies kul/gh Pr^4. - ^s'ji1=::afa,, r*ari: , r?; _--?:]:=.:- .0 -: 'q I' {', I c (J ( * a fHE S 7 5 lri0l, 20[ l,' HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 +DECREE JUDGMENT AS.No.S24 ot 2OO4 P&q., q\x{'7-f PARTLY ALLOWTNG THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI rHE HoNouRABLE ,rr r,f,f?"E TTRUMALA DEV' Between G.V.B.G.Tilak, S/o.late Raja Rao Occ: Govt. Service R/o.lndupally, Vuyyuru Taluk, Krishna District. AND ...APPELLANT/ Claimant The Land Acquisition Officer ,HUDA, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/ Respondent Appeal Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 aggrieved by the order dated 25-10-2002 in O.P.No. 150 of 1989 on'the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 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 upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Someswar Kumar, Advocate for Appellant and G.P. for Appeals on behalf of the Respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. That the order and decree dated 25-10-2002 passed in O.P.No. 150 of 1989 by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar, with regard to the 1B'o deduction towards developmental charges be and hereby is set aside.

3. That the claimant be and hereby is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 15/- per square yard fort he acquired lands. 4' That there sha, be no order as to costs in this appearr. To l. Iffi ""18."J#senior civit Judse, Ransa Reddy SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOTNT BEGISTRAR ^. . € 6 c? rHf o€rrce R District. Kul 'P'l c( a / , HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 DECREIJ AS.No.S24 ot 2O04 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS lNk, A\r'{