The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants in LAAS No. 567 of 2008 and for the Respondents in AS. No. 1581 of 2001: Sri H. Srinivasa Rao and Vijayalakshmi ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in LAAS No. 567 of 2008: GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in LAAS No. 567 of 2008 and for the Appellant in AS. No. 1581 of 2O01: Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, Standing Counsel for Singareni Colleries Company Limited The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY AND o.1581 of 200 COMMON JUDGMENTT (Per llon'ble Sri Justice Vakiti Romukrishna Recldy) These two Appeals, which are in the nature of cross appeals, arise out of a common order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in O.P. No. 9 of 1992. Since the issues involved in these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are substantially common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "LAO") in respect of the acquired lands, thereby giving rise to the present appeals at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer & RDO, Peddapalli. !' I 2 AKS,J & VRKR,I LAAS_s 6 7 _2008 & AS_7 5 I 1 _200 7

3. L.A.A.S. No. 567 of 2008 is preferred by the claimants whereas A.S. No. 1581 of 2001 is preferred by the Singareni Colllieries Co. Ltd., (SCCL) which is a beneficiary. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court. I. BRIEF FACTS:

4. The Land to an extent of Ac.37-15 gts (Ac.22-01 gts of dry land and Ac. 15-14 gts of wet land) situated at Jangoan Village of Peddapalli Taluq of Karimnagar District were acquired for the purpose of depillaring of 5-A incline mine by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. TI.

5. A notification under section a(1) of the Act, was published on

14.2.1984. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award no. 6184 dated

29.11.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 9 of 1992 before the Reference Court. 3 BY AKS,] & VRKR,J LAAS_s 67 _2008 & As _1 5 8 1 _200 7 The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following III. 6 issues for determination: (i) Whether the award No.6/84, dt. 29.11.1984 passed by the Land Acquisition officer is not reasonable and adequate? (ii) rvhether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced the compensation, if so, at what rute? IV. EVII) 7. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the N clairnants examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits A1 to 44, which comprised exemplar sale deeds pertaining to adjacent lands'

8. On behalf of the respondents before the Reference Court, the Deputy Tahsitdar in rhe office of LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer was examined as RWI and RW2 was executed on behalf of Respondent No.2 (SCCCL) while Exs. Bl and 2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. v IN o RE CE g. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence adduced, found that the oral evidence of PWs-l to 5, documentary t; t: 'i : j ) : i I I I I I ,l ) I I I i I ! 4 AKS,I & VRKR,J LAAS 567 2008 & AS 1581 2001 evidence under Exs. A-1 and A-2,and the award marked as Ex. B-1, has observed that the acquired lands were of high potential value; the claimants had established that the lands being converted into non- agricultural plots suitable for house sites, were within the municipal limits, and formed parl of an industrial belt housing establishments such as the Fertilizer Corporation of India (F.C.I).

10. The Reference Court noted that the sale deeds i.e. Exs. A-l to A-3 reflected prices of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.1,06,000/-, and Rs.1,20,000/- per acre respectively, and accordingly found them relevant and reliable for assessing the proper market value. I l. The Reference Court adopted the lowest sale value of Rs.60,0001- per acre shown in Ex. A-1 as the basis for enhancement. Keeping in view the public purpose of the acquisition, a deduction of 40o/o was made, thereby fixing the market value at Rs.36,000/- per acre as reasonable and just. L2. Consequently, the Reference was partly allowed with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,0001- per acre under Section 23(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, along with 30% solatium, l2Yo additional amount from the date of / / 5 AKS,] & VRKR,I t 4A5_567_2008 & A5_7581_2007 notification till award, and interest atgo/o per annum for one year and l5o/o per annum thereafter until payment or deposit.

13. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.1999 passed by the Reference Court, the clairnants preferred L'A.A.S. No. 567 of 2008 and whereas the Respondent No.2 (SCCL) preferred A-S. No. 1581 of

2001. OF vI. A) Contentions of the Claimants: 14. The Appellants in L.A.A.S. No. 567 of 2008 and respondents/claimants in A.S. No. 1581 of 2001 contend that the Reference Court erred in not frxing the higher compensation even after having categorically found that the acquired lands are rich, highly fertile, and possess immense potential for conversion into house sites, commercial establishments and shopping areas.

15. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, which stood corroborated by the testimony of PWs 2 to 5, clearly established that the acquired lands are even more fertile and valuable than those covered under the sale deeds relied upon and considered by the Reference Court. 'fhe lands, being adjacent to the'Public Welfare I! i i I I , I I i t' I I 6 AKS,J & VRKR,J LAA<_s 6 7_2 008 & AS_7 5 8 1 _200 7 Department (P.W.D.) road and located within the industrial area are having high potential value.

16. It is further pointed out that even Ex. B-[ acknowledges that the lands fall within the industrial belt, surrounded by coal mines and thickly populated localities, thereby indicating strong and growing demand for conversion into house site purposes. 1,7. The claimants further contend that, having accepted the sale deeds Exs. A-1 to A-3, wherein the lands were sold for Rs.60,000/-, Rs.1,06,000/-, and Rs.1,20,000/- per acre respectively, the Reference Court erred in adopting the lowest sale value of Rs.60,000/- per acre (Ex. A- I ) as the basis for determination of compensation, ignoring the higher and more representative sale instances.

18. The claimants further contend that the deduction of 4Aoh made by the Reference Court on the ground of "public purpose" is arbitrary and unsupported by any legal principle. Therefore, the claimants submit that the compensation fixed at Rs.36,000/- per acre is wholly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, being the true market value as on the date of Notification under Section (l) of the Act. However, as the claimants are unable to pay the / / 7 AKS,J & VRKR,] t 4A5_567_2008 & A5_1581_2007 requisite court fee for the full amount i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- they have restricted their claim to Rs.88,000/- per acre.

19. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the clairnants has prayed that, there being merit in L.A.A.S.No'567 of 2008 filed by them, the same may be allowed and that there being no merit in A.S.No.158l of 2001 filed by the Respondent No.2 (SCCCL), the same deserves to be dismissed. B) 2

20. Per contra, the Appellant in A.S. No. l58l of 2001 and the Respondent No.2 in L.A.A.S. 567 of 2008 has contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre without any sufficient or reliable evidence' [t is submitted that the Reference Court wrongly held that the acquired lands to be fertile and commercially valuable, though no material evidence was adduced regarding the nature of yield or any developmental potential of the lands. The finding of the Reference Court that the lands were rich and possessed potential for commercial exploitation is based upon mere assumptions and unsupported by any documentary proof. -7 I i1 i i. I l I l: I I i: l ,] ,,1: 11 i' tl. 'l 8 AKS,J & VRKR,I t 4A5_567_2008 & A5_1581_2001

21. It is further contended that the Reference Court wrongiy relied upon the existence of nearby mining operations and certain industrial establishments like Kesoram Cements, National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C) and F.C.[, to enhance the market value of the acquired lands.

22. The Respondent No.2 submits that the coal extracted in the region belongs to the Government, and hence, mining activity cannot influence the value of the land. Moreover, the industries referred to by the Reference Court are located far away from the acquired site, within a distinct industrial belt, and their existence cannot constitute a valid or comparable factor for determining market value.

23. The Respondent No.2 also submits that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Exs. Al to ,4.3, which relate to small house- site plots situated more than 5 kilometres away from the acquired land, and hence cannot be taken as comparable sales for determining the compensation for a larger extent of 37 .15 acres.

24. The Respondent No.2 further asserts that the enhancement of compensation to Rs.36,000/- per acre is erroneous, unsound, and ( 9 AKS,I & VRKR,J t 4A5_567_2008 & A5_1581_2001 contrary to law. The Respondent No.2 maintains that the original award of the LAO was fair and just and accordingly deserves to be restored.

25. In the light of the foregoing submissions, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 prayed that, there being merit in A.S.No.t58l of 2001 filed by it may be allowed and L.A.A.S.No.567 of 2008 filed by the claimants seeking further enhancetnent may be dismissed. vtr. PoINTS FOR DE ATION:

26. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the entire material placed on record, the following points arise for determination iqr this batch of appeals: (i) Whether the Reference Court was iustified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands ? (i, Whether the enhancement granted is in accordance with law and supported by evidence on record? (ii, To what relief ,f ony are the claimants entitled? I 10 AKS,J & VRKR,J LAAS s67 2008&AS 1581 2001 VIIL COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION:

27. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart of compensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: Extent (Ac.-guntas) Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre)

37.15 12,0001- 36,000/- 24,0001-

28. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence, it is manifest that the LAO had adopted a conservative approach in fixing the market value. The Reference Court, on the other hand, took into consideration the following relevant factors: the location and potentiality of the lands; i. tt. itt. the comparability of lands situated in the vicinity of the the sale exemplars of the proximate period; and acquired lands.

29. The critical question, that therefore, arises for consideration is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Exs. Al to ,{3, and its ultimate fixation of market value at Rs. 36,0001- per acre, can be sustained in law and on the basis of the material available on record. tI ) l I 7L AKS,] & VRKR,J t AAS_557_2008 & A5_1581_2007 IX. ANALYS IS AND FINDINGS:

30. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the material available on record, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, and the findings recorded by the Reference Court, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court, while enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.36,000/- per acre, has correctly relied upon the sale deeds marked as Exs. Al to A3, which pertain to lands situated in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands.

31. The genuineness of these sale deeds was not disputed by the respondents, and the evidence of PWs.l to 5 consistently establishes that the acquired lands are of superior fertility, advantageous location, and higher potential than those covered by Exs. A-l to A-3.

32. The Reference Court has also recorded a categorical finding that the acquired lands fall within the municipal limits of Jangaon Village, abutting the public works department road, and surrounded by industrial establishments such as Fertilizer Corporation of India and N.T.P.C. These factors, coupled with the evidence that the acquired lands were being converted into non-agricultural plots for residential and commercial purposes, clearly indicate their high potential value l 12 AKS,J &VRKR,I LAAS 567 2008 & AS 1581 2001 However, the Reference Court, though noting that the sale deeds reflected values between Rs.60,0001- and Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, erred in relying upon the lowest sale exemplar (Ex. A l) and in further deducting 40yo, thereby arriving at a much lesser. market value. Such deduction, in the absence of any evidence of developmental requirements or formation of layout, is neither supported by the record nor justified by any legal principle.

33. It is a well-settled proposition of law that, when there are multiple comparable sale deeds, the highest bona fide sale transaction should ordinarily be adopted to determine the true market value, unless it is shown to be speculative, inf'lated or otherwise unreliable. In the instant case, no such evidence was brought on record by the respondent No.2 to discredit the authenticity or bonaf'rdes of the sale transactions covered under against Exs. A-2 and A-3.

34. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the sale instances, relied upon by them relates to small house-site plots situated at 5 kilometers away from the acquired lands, are found to be untenable. Inasmuch as the lands covered under the sale deeds were proved through substantial oral and documentary evidence, and the / 13 AK',J & VRKR,J LAAS_s 67 _2008 & AS_7 58 1 _200 1 lands covered therein are located within the same village and share similar topographical and locational advantages as the acquired lands.

35. Likewise, the further contention of the respondent No.2 that the existence of industries in the vicinity cannot influertce the market value of the land is equally devoid of merit. The proximity of acquired lands to major industrial establishments and rapidly urbanising region inherently contributes to the land's potential and desirability. The presence of such establishments invariably leads to increased infrastructure development, employment opportunities, and housing demand, thereby significantly enhancing the market value of surrounding lands. X. CONCLUSION:

36. [n view of the foregoing discussion and upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court, taking into account the contemporaneous sale deeds (Exs. Al to A3), the advantageous location and potentiality of the acquired lands, and the cogent oral testimony of PWs I to 5, is of the considered opinion that the true market value of the acquired lands, as on the date of Notification under Section (1) of the Act, ought to be fixed reasonably at Rs.88,000/- per I 74 AKS,J & VRKR,I LAAS_567_2008 & AS_1 581 _200 1 acre, as claimed by the claimants. The deduction of 40yo made by the Reference Court in the absence of any justification such as developmental requirements or layout formation is found to be arbitrary and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 37- As regards the statutory benefits, the claimants shall be entitled to solatium at 30%o and additional market value at l2yo per annum from the date of notification till the date of award, together with interest at 9o/o per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and l|Yo per annum thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections 23(1 -A),23(2), and 28 of the Act. XI. RESULT: 38- [n the result, the Appeal filed by the craimants i.e., L.A.A.S. No. 567 of 2008 is allowed, enhancing rhe compensation from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.88,000/- per acre, together with all statutory benefits permissible under the Act as modified herein. Tl-re Claimants shall accordingly be entitled to all other statutory benefits under the Act, including solatium, additional value and interest.

39. consequently, the Appeal filed by the respondents (A.S. No. 1581 of 2001) is dismissed, confirming the findings of the Reference n2 I I I i I I t 1, I I i i i I ,l I 1 i I 15 AKS,I & VRKR,J t 4A5_,67_2008 & 1s81_2001 Court insot'ar as the entitlement to enhancement is concerned, but modi$ing the rate of compensation as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, rniscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Appeal shall also stand closed SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.(with records, if any)' Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to Sri H. Srinivasa Rao and Vijayalakshmi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, Standing Counsel for Singareni Colleries Company Limited [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies VH/PSL M, : ,: 1:..*.*nir*:.$:- _ 3n:-li t HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE S.No.567 of 2008 AND A.S. NO. 1s81 0F 2001 r)HEI (- f i [i[ i'j?s Y * * ALLOWING THE LAAS.No.567 of 2008 AND DISMISSING THE A.S. NO. 1581 0F 2001 WITHOUT COSTS t\ 7\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAAS NO : 567 0F 2008 AND A.S. NO. 1581 0F 2001 LAAS NO: 567 OF 2008 Between:

1. J.Umashankar Rao, S/o Bhupathi Rao. 2. J. Satyanarayana Rao, S/o Manohar Rao 3. J Vtihal Rao S/o Venkata Rama Rao (Died per LR-16), 4. J. Rameshwara Rao S/o Venkata Rama Rao (Died per LR-17) 5. G. Mahender Rao, S/o. Kamalakkara Rao 6. Mekala Chandraiah, S/o Mallaiah 7. E. Narsinga Rao S/o. Srinivasa Rao (Died per LR-18) 8. Pendiala Narasaiah S/o Mallaiah(Died per LRs-19 to 22) 9. Makala Komaraiah S/o Pochaiah(Died per LR-23), 10. Penjdiala Rayamallu S/o. Mallesam(Died per LRs-24 & 25) '1 '1 . Pendiala Bakkaiah, S/o. Mallesam 12. Nagammalla Munindeer, S/o. Rala Veeru 13. Kurma Odaiah S/o. Balaiah(Died per LR-26) 14.K. Ravinder Rao, S/o. Raghaverder Rap 15. D. Sunam Kumar, S/o. D.V. Rajeswara Rao 16.J. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Vittal Rao,Nged 55 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jangdon, V/o. Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District.

17. Rakesh Kumar, S/o. J. Rameshwar Rao, Aged 31 Years, Occ: Ptivate Service R/o. Jangaon, V/o. Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District, Presently R/o. at Mancherial

18.E. Srinivas Rao, S/o. E. Narsing Rao, Aged 47 Years, Occ: Private Service R/o. Jangaon, V/o. Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District, Presently Rl/o. at Peddapally.

19. Pendyala Komuramma, Wo. Narasaiah, Aged 73 Years 20. Pendyala Selpuri Rajeshwari, Dlo. Narasaiah, Aged 47 Years 21. Samudrala Shankaramma, D/o. Narsaiah Wo. Durgaiah, Aged 65 Years 22.ljjagiri Bhoomakka, D/o. Narsaiah, Aged 41 Years .r:.+:::r: nd-

23. Mekala Buchamma, Wo Mekala Komraiah, Aged 66 Years, Household R/o. Jangaon, V/o. Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District. 24.Pendayala Rajaiah, S/o. Pendyala Rayamallu, Aged 56 Years 25.P.endyala.[Mondaia!, slo, Pendyala Rayamallu, Aged 51 years R/o. uppafla, V/o. t\tlanthani [/andal, District pedapally

26. Kurma Shankaraiah, S/o. Odaiah, Jangaon, V/o. Ramagundam Mandal tgeO 70 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o , Peddapally District. ...APPELLANTS ^ . _ ^APPellants l6 to 26 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant Nos. 3,4,7,8,,10 and 13. namely.: J.._Vithal Rao. J Rameshwara Rao, E. Na'risinga Rao, Pendiala Narasaiah, Makala Komaraiah, Pendiala Rayamallu and Kurma Od;iah ad PPt.Coylt Orde_r^dat9!2p 03.1023, vide l.A.Sr.Nos. 23563119, 23575t1923570t19t, !4 Ng.l2 g!?9?2,l.A.sr No. 23574119,23sa1t19 and 23sra of 2019, made in LAAS No. 567 of 2008. AND

1. The Land Acquisition Officer and RDO, Peddapalli. 2. The General Manager, sc. co. Ltd., Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist, ... RESPON DENTS/RESPON DENTS

3. J. Vimala Bai Wo Radha Krishna Rao 4. J. Ravi Prakash S/o Manoher Rao 5. J. lvlanoher Rao S/o Venkata Rama Rao 6. Deeskar lswar BaiWo Purshotham Rao 7. Gaddam Linga Swamy S/o Banaiah ..RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 2, 3, 5, 15 & 18 APPEAL SUIT : 1581 OF 2001 Between The singareni colleries co. Ltd, represented by the General Manager, amagundam Project Area. ...APPELLANT AND

1. J. Umashankar Rao S/o Bhupathi Rrao 2. J.Vimala Bai Wo Radhakishan Rao 3. J. Ravi Prakash S/o Manoha Rao 4. J. Satyanarayana Rao S/o Manohar 5. J.Manoha ao S/o Venkatrama Rao 6. J.Vittal Rao S/o Venkatama ao 7. J. Rameshwar Rao S/o Venkatama Rao B. G.Mahender Rao S/o Kamalaka Rao 9. Mekala Chandraiah S/o Mallaiah

10. E. Narsing Rao S/o Srinivasa Rao 1 1. Pendiala Nasaiah S/o Mallaiah

12. Mekala Komuraiah S/o Pochaiah

13. Pendial Rayamallu S/o Mallesham

14. Pendial Bakkaiah S/o Mallesham

15. Deskar Eswar Bai Wo Purushotham Rao

16. Nagamalla Munider S/o Rajaveeru

17. Kurma Odaiah S/o Balaiah

18. Gaddam Lingaswamy S/o Banaiah

19. K. Ravinder Rao S/o Ragjavende Rao

20.D. Sunam Kumar S/o D.V. Rajeshwar Rao 21 . The Land Acquisition Officer, R.r.Do., Peddapalli All are r/o Jangaon village, Ramagundam ltlandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeals filed under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894 against the order and decree dated 24-8-1999 in O.P. No.9 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. These appeals 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 H. Srinivasa Rao and Vijayalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellants in LAAS No. 567 of 2008 and for the Respondents in AS. No. 1581 of 2001, GP for Appeals for the Respondent No. 1 in LAAS No. 567 of 2008 and Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy, Standing Counsel for Singareni Colleries Company Limited for the Respondent No. 2 in IAAS No. 567 of 2008 and for the Appellant in AS. No. 1581 of 2001. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows.

1. That the LAAS No. 567 of 2008 be and hereby is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 88,000/- per acre, together with all statutory benefits permissible under the Act as modified herein;

2. That the Claimants shall accordingly be entitled to all other statutory benefits under the Act, including solatium, additional value and interest;

3. That the Appeal Suit No. 1581 of 2001 filed by the respondents be and hereby is dismissed, confirming the findings of the Reference Court insofar as the entitlement to enhancement is concerned, but modifying the rate of compensation as indicated above;

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, peddapalli 2. Two CD Copies VH/PSL / -W HIGH COURT DATED: 0711U2A25 COMMON DECREE LAAS.No.567 of 2008 AND A.S. No. 1581 of 2001 ALLOWING THE LAAS.No.567 ol 2008 AND DISMISSING THE A.S. NO. 1581 0F 2001 WITHOUT COSTS tlA 6