V. Laxma Reddy, S/o Late v. Bal R Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar Di Nos

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri A Kranti K mar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : GP for Appe The Court delivered the following: Judgme t .Appellants Nos.2 to 4/Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No. L66 of 2OO7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui liada) 'l'his appcal, under Section 54 of the Lzrncl Acquisition Act, 1894, ([or short ,the Act) is preferred by rhe appellants _ claim.r,ts, aggrievcd by thc order and decrec <lated 02.05.20o3 passecl in O.lr.No.71 of l()99 by the learned Additional District Judge ut Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as,the Refcrence C o urL';-

2. I,-o r convcnience and clarity, the parties herern are refcrred to.rs the),u.erc arrayecl before the reference Court.

3. TItc lact s of thr: case in brief are that the ]and to an extent ol'Ac.02-28 gu.tas was acquired by the Government for formation of Metro gallge to Broad gauge railway line at Baianagar. Draft notrllcarion under Section 4(1) of lhe Act r.r,as published on 12.Ol.1996, u,hilc thc posscssion was taken on 21.03.1994. After duc encluirl', thc Land Acquisition officer has fixed the market valtre (1r: lls.30 0O0/- per acre. Aggrievecl by the said zrward, the claimants have madc an application under Section lg t>f the Act, \ -$A \1'..1 2 AKS,I & EID,J LAAS No.166 2007 '.1 q,hich was referred to the ditional District Judge at Mahabubnagar

4. The case of the claimants i ncar [o the National Highway an land [here are commercial compl that the acquired land is vcry that just behind Lhe acquirecl xes, hotels and shops, also a railway station and an MRO Ofhce nd that the acquired land is of commercial value.

5. The reference Court has med thc following poin ts for consideration: "1. What is the market v by the date of acquisiti 2. Whether the claimant compensation?,, lue of the acquired land n? rs entitled to enhanced 6 Before the relerence Court, I to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A6 claimants got examined pWs On_ behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was

7. Based on the evidence on re ord, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.5 ,000/- but made a deduction ol Rs. 15,0O0/- and thus, arrived at pcr acre, apart from statutory ben market value of Rs.35,OOO/ fits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred e present appeal 3 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.166 2007

8. Heard the submissions of Sri A.Kranfhikumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for thc rcsponden L.

9. Learned counsci for the appellants has submitted that the reference Court has erroneously arrived at the principle of making deductions for dcvelopment in an acquisition made for the purpose of broad gauge railway line. He further arguecl that the said deductions rvould be made when it is acquired for [he purpose of house sites but not for the purpose of railrvay line. He further arguecl Lha t tlre re lerence courl failed to consider the evidence of PWs I to 3 and also the documents filed under Exs.A1 to A6. He further argued that pW2 is the purchaser of the land under trx.A 1 and his r:vidcncc was also not considered by the reference CourL ancl :rlso that the reference Court lailed to consider the jr-rdgment of Lhe Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in OP No.249 of 1984, u-herein the reference Court has awarded Rs.70/- per square r.ard and thc Hon,ble Hrgh Court reduced to Rs.45/- per squ.rre y.rrd, whcn the land was acquired for the purpose of house sites, therefore, they claimed to enhance the compensation Lo Rs.5O/ per square yard. I 4 AKS,J & ETD,] LAAS N0.166 2007

10. The learned Government pl refcrence Court has considered all t arrived at j ust compensation and h thc same. der has submitted that the e evidence on record and has therefore, prayed to uphold I 1. Based on the above nval conte following points for determrnation: tions, this Court frames the 1 Whcther the claimants or compensation? 2 . Whe ther the order ancl d need any interference?

3. to what reliep enl itled for en hanccmcn t cree of the reference Court 07 ..11.1995, wherein the the claimants are uncler old @Rs.30O/_ per square

12. POINT NO.1: a) The salc cleeds relied upon b trxs.Al, A2, A4 and AS. trx.A1 date land to an extent of 2OO Sq.yards was yarcl in survey No.233 situated at Bal Mahabubnagar District. Ex.A2 dated 07.1 1.),995, wherein the land to an extent of 2OO Sq.yards was s ld @ Rs.25O/- per square yard, however, it pertains to survey No.233. Ex.A4 dared 10.12.1993, u,herein the land to an ext nt of 26.66 Sq.yards was sold @ Rs. 110/- per square yard in s vey No.234. trxs.A I, ,{2 and A4 pertains to survey Nos.233 and 2 4 respectively, while the agar Village and Mandal, I 5 AKS,] & ETD,J LAAS No.166 2007 present acquisrtion is in survey Nos.17i, 172, 2O3 and 2O4 Ex.A5 cannot be considerecl because it pertains to 10.02.19g9 which is five 1,cars prior ro acquisition. b) The values under trxs.AI, 42 and ,{4 are different which are Rs-3OO/- per square yard, 2JOl_ per square yard and 110/_ per square yard, so they varl' under differenr survey numbers and the present acquisition docs noI pertain to the survey numbers under which the above sale transactions have taken place. c) PW1 denied the suggestion that the lands under Exs.Al and A'2 are situated by thc side of National Highway and they are fit for commercial purposes. The land under Ex.A1/the sale deed, is stated [o be ir-r the village arrd on the station road and is about 400 yards away from rhe acquired land, as per the admission made by PW2. PW3 furrher admitted that the lancl under Ex.A2 sale deed is around 3OO yarcls au,a1. lrom the National highway and that his ptot is sitLrated bet$.een the National highway and the railway station. d) Therefore, based on the eviclence on recordr the said sale transactions under Exs_A1, ,{2 and A4 pertain to lhe lands which are abutting rhe nationar highrvay as reveared from the evidence of PW1 1 to 3, rvhile the acquired land is abutting the rarlway track. \ \ I 6 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.166 2007 Thus, the said sale deeds can be n way compared to the acquired e) The sales statistics as reve led in the award copy undcr Ex.B1 refcrs to the sale transaction held at Balanagar village and Mandal during 1993-95. The Lan Acquisition Officer has taken the sale transacLion at Sl.No.13 un er which Ac. 1.28 guntas was sold @ Rs.50,000/- and has reduce the value by Rs.20,000/ per acre as the said land was found to be 1 KM away from lhe National Highu.a_r.. The refercnce consideration thc said sale tr Court also has taken into saction at 51.No.13 i.e. @ Rs.50,000/- per acrc but has given /3.d deduction and arrived al Rs.35,00O/ per acre. 0 The rccord rcveals that the urpose of acquisition is for laying the broad gauge railway line Thus, from the evidence of the witnesscs and a perusal of th documents reveal that the acquired land is abutting the railw y track, once it is near the railway track, it cannot be held to have any potential lor development into commercial purpos S C) It is settted law that whene r the land is acquired lor house sites, then a deduction of 1 3.d is permissible. ln tl.M. 7 AKS,J & ETD,,] LAAS No.166 2007 Ramudu & Ors. u. RDO cum LAO Adoni qnd othersl, it was held by a Bench o[ this Court that the lands are lying in u.ell- developed municipal area, having lacility of access to main road, electricity, water lines, etc. but nonetheless, u,hen vast extents of lands which arc acquired and arc to be developed inro a layout, by providing house sites to the weaker sections, 1/3.1 value has got lo be deducted. In view of the larv laid dou,n in the above cited decision, it is held that deduction of 1 / 3rct is propcr, wherein the land is acquired for house sites, but in the present case, the acquisiLion is made for brc,ad ga ugc rarlu,ay line, hence, the deduction is not proper in thc eye of larv. Thereforc, the reference Court was right in enhancing thc compensation to Rs.50,000/- per acre, however, it is held that the deduction that is made by the reference Court is not just and proper in vicu' of the legal position and has to be set aside. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of thc rcfcrcncc Court need to be modihed with regard to the 1 / 3ta deduction made bt, the reference Court and that the compensation arrived at by thc rcference Court 12016 SCC online Hyd 131 8 LAAS No.166 2o0 7 @ Rs.50,000/ per acrc vard is up eld but the finding with regard to the deduction of Rs. 15,000/- i the claimants woulcl be cntit seL aside, as a result of which, ed to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre, ior the acqu red land.

14. POINT NO. 3: In the result, thc appcal is rtly allowed by setting aside the order and decrce clated 02.0 2003 passed in O.p.No.7l of 1999 by the learned Aclditional Di trict Judge at Mahabubnagar, with regard to thc dcduction (at Rs 15,000/- and accordingly, the claimants are entitled to thc co pensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre for the acquirecl lar.rd. Thcrc s all be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Pctitions pendi g, if any, shali stand closed. //TRUE C Yil SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Ju (For His Lordship,s tice Abh nand Kuma f shav nd Pe rusa ) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Smt (For Her Ladyship,s ustice Tirumala Devi Eada ind Perusal) . The Additional District Judge, Mahabub . 11 LR Copies aga(With records, if any) To, 1 2 J 4 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Mi Affairs, New Delhi hT e Secreta ry Ad VOca eS So C a on Te a nsa na H s h Co rt B t nsS a H 5 one c to S A Kra nt Kum a Redd C I v 6. Two CCs to Gp r Appea S H f'o C o U rt Hyderabad [OU 7. Two CD Copies As U d U L e istry of Law, Justice and Company rary, High Court for the State of yd abad ocate [OPUC] r the State of Telangana at _: ,. q,i...- . HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 A JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.166 of 2007 '' STATE 5 o 1'\ [\\t r\tl c) .h k Dsslii PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS T IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE BAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FI H DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AN TWENry FIVE PRESE T THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTI E TIRUMALA DEVI EADA HINAND KUMAR SHAVILI LAND AC UISITION FIRST A PEAL NO: 166 OF 2007 Between:

1. V. Laxma Reddy, S/o Late V. Bal R Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar Di Nos.2 to 4)

2. Bendhi Jayanthi, Wo. B. Srinivas Housewife, Rio. H.No. 1 -37lB, Elikatta, 3. Kothur Revathi, Wo. Kothur Janardha Housewife, R/o. H.No.Flat No.57 Prim Urdu University, Gachibowli, Ranga R 4. Rajender R. Venkat, Sio.'Venkat Laxm Balanagar, Mahabubnagar - 5Og 202. Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are brought on Appellant as per Court Order dated 2 LAAS No. 166 of2007 dy, Occ: Agriculture R/o Balanagar rict. (Died as per LRS Appellants eddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ ahabubnagar Reddy, Aged about 63 years, Occ. ose Block L and T Serene County, R dy Distrct. Reddy, H.No.2-69, Post Office Road, record as LRs of deceased Sole .06.2023, vide lA No. 3 of 2023 in AND The Land Acquisition Officerl, Revenue Div ional Officer, Mahabubnagar District ...AppellanUclaim Petitioner ppellants Nos.2 to 4/Respondents Appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1 daled O2lO5l2O03 made in O.P.No.7'1 of Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 1 4 against the Judgment and decree 99 on the file of the court of the pon perusing the grounds of appeal, This appeal coming on for hearing and the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court d the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Kra ti Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of GP for Appeals, for the Resp ndent This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 7 1' That the LAAS be and hereby is parry arowed by setting aside the order and decree dated 02.05.2003 passed in o.p,No.71 of i999 by the Additionat District Judge at Mahabubnagar, with regard to the deduction @ Rs.15,000/_ ; compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre

2. That the claimants are entifled to the for the acquired land ; J That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// "tr \ K. SRINIVASA RAO :q[IT:ISTRAR l I l l i SECTION OFFICER To, '1.The Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar 2. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 DECREE LAAS.No.166 of 2007 PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS r$