The High Court · 2025

Judgment

HON'BI,T, SRI .IUSTICE ABHINAND KUM,,\R SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JT]STICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY l-AAS.No.629 of 2007 .IU,DGMEN'f: lper I futn 'hle ,\ri Ju.ttice l,o,rnti Norayana Ali.:he tty)

Ileard Sri Y.Srinivasamurthy, learned c,)unsel for the appellant-claimant and leamed Assistant Govemrrent Pleader for Appeals appcaring for the respondent-Land Acquisirion Officer.

2. 'fhis ,,\ppeal. under Section 54 of the Land ltcquisition Act, 1894, (1br brci'ity'the Act'), is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the ordcr and clecree darecl 28.10.2006 passed in L.A.O.p.No.3 of 2000 on thc illc ol'thc lsr Senior Civil Judge, Cit,y Civit Courts, Hyderabad, (1br brevitv. hereinalier referred to as ''the Reference Coun").

3. In nut-sl-rell, the t'acts ol- the case are that tl^.e Govemment acquired an L'\tent ol 27.5 square yards of propert.l belonging to the appellant/claimant which is situated at T.S.No.13/2 Block-B, Ward No. 1, \arayanaeuda, lor the purpose of road rvidening on account of construction of road flyover bridge near Narayanaguda cross roads; that Draft notification under Section 4r'l) of the Act was published in ol-ficial gazette on 03.06.1999; that possession ol the acquired propefty rvas taken on 08.12. 1999; and after tb[owing - --- 2 AKS.J&l,Nll.J LAAS No.629 o12007 the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.G/I7l dated

30.10.1999, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,906/-p", ,quur. yurd. 4. As there was some discrepancy with regard to entries in the Town Survey Land Register over the subject acquired property, the Land Acquisition Officer has refened the matter to the competent Civil Court under Section 3 0 ol the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.p.No.5l of I999 and the appellant_claimant not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed an application under Section lg of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court, which was numbered as LAOp.No.3 of 2000.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behatf of the appellant /claimant, P.Ws.l and 2 were examined, but no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Referring Officer, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court held that the appellant /claimant is the owner of the subject acquired property and hence, she is entitled to receive compensation for the same. Further, the J AKS J&LNA,J LAAS.,\o 629 af2007 Reference (lourt has enhanced the market value 'lf the acquired land lrom Rs.2,9061 per square yard to Rs.4,500/- per square yard, apan lrom granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the respondent/c lainiant. Seeking lurther enhancement of the market value fixed by the Refbrence Court for the acquired property, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

7. Learned couttsel fbr the appellant/c laimrrnt inter alia contended that the Relcrence Court erred in refusing to consider the sale deed dated ()8.01.1999, which reflects the price of Rs.16,000/- per square yard, lor ttre building which is sittrated opposite to the acquired property of the appellant, which in fact, was ref-erred to and rejected by the Land Acquisitior Officer in the Arvard. IIe contended rhat the Relerence Courl ought to have taken into consideration tl're said sale deed and fixed the rnarket value of the acquired property, rvhich is situated in heart ofllyderabad city; that the Reference Court has enhanced the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer arbitrarily, at its orvn whims and fancies, which is per se rrot sustainable. He further contended that the Relerence Court has erred in not fixing the valuation of the acquired propcrty based on the evidence ol P.W-2. By contending thus, Ieamed counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order of ,r. _/ .,] i 4 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No.629 o12007 Reference Court and eniance the market value of the acquired property.

8. Leamed Assistant Govemment pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisirion Officer contended that though the appellant/claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support ofher claim for enrancement of market value, the Reference Court taking into account the location of the acquired propefty in a busy commercial acrivity, rightly enhanced the market value, which requires no further interference by this Court and he prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 9. Apropos the submissions of leamed counsel appearing for both the parties, it has to be seen whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired property is fair and reasonable. I 0. It is settled principle of raw that when it is the case of the claimant that lhe compensation granted by the Relerence Court is unreasonable and meager, the burden is upon him/her to prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the one fixed by the Reference Couft. I l. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Speciat Deputy Collector and another I I . ,T7 ? AKS J & t,NA. J 1..1,t5.,\o (29 0J 2007 elc., v. Kurro Samhasiva Rqo owl otherst wherein it is held as hereunder:- ".... Burden oJ' proof is always on the claimcrnt., to prote by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence thut the lands are capable of fetching higher cornpensalion than what is determined by the Lond Acquisition Officer, which is onlv an offe " If the Av ard is accepted without prolest. it b,;nds the partie.\ It is lhe bounden duty of the Court to evaluote the tvidence on the busis of the human condutt. even iJ' n,t rehuttal evidence is produced by tir Land Acqttisilion Olficer to ossess the market value appl.rirtg llrc relevant tests laid dovn by this '1.'ourt in lrcac.l role of dccisions ..... T'lte bttrden of proof that the amount awarcled by the Land Acquisition Oficer/Collector is not atleqtttte i.s aluoys on the Lloimants. The burttett is to addw c re levart et'td mal?rial evidence lo estctblish thot rhc at:quired lunds arc capable oJ fetching higher marktt value tlutn the amount awarded by tl'e Land A<:qui,;ition OJJicer/Collector or that the Land Acqui.sitiorr Of/icer/Collector proceeded on y/rong prenti.ses or applied a wrong principle o.f law .. .."

12. In the instant case, the appellant/claimant except her self- testimony that the acquired property fetches market value of Rs. 18,0001 per square yard. did not make any attempt to adduce ru( 1997 sc 26:ti I 6 AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS No.629 of 2007 any documentary evidence in support of her stand. Though the appellant/claimant has asserted and heavily relied upon the sale deed dated 08.0i.1999, whereunder the consideration was Rs. 16,000/- per square yard for the buitding situated opposite to the acquired property, and which was referred. to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award, did not make any anempt to at least produce registration extract of the said sale deed before the Reference Couft and get the same marked on her behalf. Therefore, mere assertion of the appellant/claimant that the rrarket value of the acquired propefty is not less than Rs. 16,000/- per square yard, without being supported by any evidence, cannot be considered and the same cannot be conclusive proof of her claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired property. 13. That apat, it is to be noted that the Reference Court has observed that the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer was not marked, much less, the sale deed which was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value of the acquired property was produced and marked and furthermore, none was examined on behalf of the Referring Officer. 14. Further, it is relevant to note that though p.W_2 who was sdDg&t to be examined on behalf of the appellant/claimant is not ,/ a I I I 7 At(.\,J&t.^A.J t..aA.\ No.6J9 oI )007 the author of the Valuation Report and he deposr:d only to the elfect that the said Reporl was issued by his office and it does not bear his signalure. l-he Ileference Court has rightly c,bserved in the impugned order that without marking the E,stimation/Valuation repofl, clcdence cannot be given to the evidence of I'.W-2 who did not even specilically depose in his evidence as to the value of the propeny under acqu isit ion.

15. Therefcrr.e, ir.r such background of the case, rvjthout there being any documentary evidence adduced on behalf c,l- either ol the parlies, thc Rct'erence Couft has rightly taken into account the location ol the acquired property i.e., in a busy comnrercial area in the heart of Hlderabad city and accordingly, the potentiality olthe acquired prope rl.y and made some guess work in determining and fixing thc I'air rrrarket value lbr the subject acquired propefty. I 6. The saicl aspect of resorting to guesswork for 'leterminalion of the market value ol'the acquired property by the Reference Courl is in accordance u'ith the judgment o1'the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Charun Dnss v, H.P. Housing & Urban Developruent Authority2 wherein it is held that an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise of determining the marl.et value. ./ , (2010) l 3 sc(' r9{t I I I I I 8 AKS, J & I.NA L4AS.No 629 of2007

17. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the market value of the acquired property as fixed by the Reference Court does not warrant any interference by this 'court. The Appeal is devoid or merits fairs and is liable to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. 19. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending,, if any,, sh stand closed. No costs. sd/ - K. SRINIVA RAO JOINT REG TRAR /,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 iliEii:r,9;,;t'fl;#3i{'rrft l;li*:'ffi 's,3i's::r:::1i3ri'Te Two CD CoPies VH/ghw .( TSE A T 1 e cJ o L) 21 rrfl [6 \+ , D p ,1 (:. ,. o ^ * HIGH COURT DATED: 2410112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.629 of 2007 i I I i j I i I I I I I I I T I ! , a I i t DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 4 cor'kA k^ ^a /r\:-r"- I I I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND TT{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 629 OF 2007 Between: Dr. T.E. Kasturi, Practising Cardiologist and lvledical Practisioner, at H.No. 3- 4-74 Narayanag uda Hyderabad. .,.APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND Land Acqusition Officer, M C.H., Hyderabad. Office of Municipal Corpn., Bldg , Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A. Act against the order and decree dated 28-10-2006 in LA.OP No. 51 of 1999 and 3 of 2000 on the file of the '1't Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 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 Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the appellant and GP for Appeals for the Respondent This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the LAAS be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIV A RAO JOINT RE ISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1 . The 1st Senior Civil Judge, City Civit Courts, Hyderabad.(with records, if any) 2. Two CD Copies W HIGH COURT DATED: 2410112025 ( DECREE LAAS.No.629 of 2007 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 4coflu4 Y)-;w