The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.86 of 2016 JUDGMENT'. @er Hon'ble Sri Justice LcLrmi Narayana Ati:hetty) Heard leamed Assistant Govemment pleader lor Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, Iearned counsel for the respondent- claimant.

2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (flor brevity'the Act'), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dared 05.12.2014 passed in O.P.No. ll74 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Courl").

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the property bearing Municipal No.6_3_ 883/4/13 admeasuring 456.40 square yards in .Topaz, building Complex, Amrutha Hills, Hydelabad, which belongs to the respondent-claimant was acquired for the purpose of road widening from Panjagutta to Rajiv Gandhi Statue Main Road, Somajiguda, 7 2 AK-S,J&LNA.J LA/1S.No 86 ol20 t6 Hyderabad; that Draft notification under Section a(l) of the Acr was published in the Official Gazette on 25.02.2005; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Official Gazette on 25.07.2005; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, dated 16.03.2006, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.6,000/- per square yard. 4. As the respondent/clainiant did not fumish the documents showing its ownership over the subject acquired property, the Land Acquisition Officer has rcfem$d the matter to the competent Civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.l174 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Referenoe Court, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were exarnined and Exs.A_1 to A-10 were marked. On behatf of the appellant-Ref'er:ring Officer, R.W-1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court held that the respondent/claimant is the 6v7ns1 of the subject acquired property and hence, it is entitled to compensation for the same. Fufther, the a :/ a) J AK,',J&LNA,J LAAS tto.86 ol20l6 Reference Courl has enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.6,000/- per square yard to Rs.17,600/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the respondent/claimant. Aggrieved thereby. the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

7. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land based on Ex.A-7-Market Value Certiflcate issued by the Sub-Registrar and as such, he sg.ught to set aside tl,re impugned order.

8. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that taking into account the location of the acquired land being prime area, the Reference Clurt has rightly enhanced the compensation for the acquired land and therefore, there are no merits in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. ln this Appeal, no ground is raised chaltenging the impugned order of the Reference Court holding the respondent/clainrant as owner of the subject acquired propefty and therefore, the same is nor bdjudicared by this Court. -- 4 f-, ,4KS,J&LNA,J LA4S No 86 of 2A l6

10. The respondent/claimant has got marked as many as ten documents vrz., Exs.A-I to A-10 before the Reference Court in support of its claim for enhancement of market value of the subject acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Among the said documents, Exs.A-6 to A-8 are mainly relied upon by the respondent/claimant for enhancement of market value of the acquired land 1 I . It is relevant to note that Exs.A-7 and A-8 are Market Value Certificates issued by the Sub-Registrar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder the market value of the land was shown as Rs.17,600/- per square yard. However, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in a catena of judgments, i.e., in BSNZ Vs. Nenichand Damodardast and Choda Dharampal Reddy Vs. Ret,enuc Dit,isional Offtcer, Nalgonda Districf, the said documents cannot form basis for determination of market value of the acquired property. The Reference Court has erroneously considered the Market Value Certificates and enhanced the market value of the acquired land based on the said Certifi cates, which is unsusthinable ' 1zozz1 t+ x:c eo ' tggt(r) et-o zot (os) .(a: 5 AKS,J&LNA,J L,4AS No.86 of 2016

12. That apart, it is pertinent to note that Ex.A-6 is a sale deed, dated 30.06.2005, whereunder a property with built-up area of 2,000 square feet with undivided share of 46.66 square yards was sold for consideration of Rs.20,50,000A.

13. In the instant case, 4(1) notification was published on

25.02.2005, thus, Ex.A-6-sale deed is a post-notification saie deed. However, it relates to property in the same building known as 'Topaz' building complex, in which the subj ect propefty 1S acquired. Further, on behalf of the respondent/claimant before the Reference Court, P.W-2-attestol of Ex.4.-6-sale deed was examined, who deposed to the contents of the said document. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Land Acquisition Olficer before the Reference Court. Aiso, it is apt to note that the genuineness of the said document is neither challenged nor disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court. Therefore, the genuineness of the said document cannot be doubted.

14. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Ex.A-6 is a combined sale deed in respect of a flat with plinth area of 2,000 squale feet with undivided share of 46.66 square yards of land, whereunder the total sale consideration is shown as Rs.20,50,000/-. 6 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No 66 of20t6 q In Ex.A-6-sale deed, there is no clear or separate mention of market value of the land and tl-re structure i.e., built up area, except mentioning the market value of the flat along with undivided share of land. In the absence of such break-up of market value of the flat i.e., built-up area and the undivided share of land, the stand of the respondent/claimant that the market value of the land covered under Ex.A-6-sale deed is Rs.20,000/- per square yard and as such, based on it, they are seeking enhancement of the rnarket value of the acquired land, cannot be accepted in lolo. 1 5. Admittedly, the propeity covered under Ex.A-6-sale deed is situated in the third floor of the same building known as 'Topaz' building complex, in which the acquired propefty is situated and that the acquired property is located in prime area of Hyderabad city and is a prominent commer.cial area. Hence, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that though Ex.A-6 is a post-notification sale deed, the same cannot be brushed aside altogether completely tiom consideration as the genuineness of the same is proved by the respondenUclaimant beyond any doubt and at best, Ex.A-6 can be taken as a guiding factor for assessment of market value of the subject land. The respondentr/claimant adduced evidence to 1 .1,{5 J& 1A:4 J LA,4S n'o.86 ol20l6 establish that the acquired property is capable of letching higher market value than the amount aWarded by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special D1,. Collector & Anr. v. Kuna Sambasiva Rao & Ors3 held as under:_ "The Court enjoined to detennine the market value on i) objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market ii) the nature of the user of the land to which the lund was put on the dote of the notification. the situation of the land iii)income tlerived therefrom and all other relevant o ltend ing c ircums I o n ce s. The market value so deterntined should be jusf. otlequale und reasonable. In other words, it must be just equivalent to what tlrc land is t.apable of fetching in the open market from a willing ond prudent buyer. Therefore, the colLt.t is required to sit in the arm r:hair of a bona fide vtilling ond pruCenr purchaser in tlte open markel and seek on answer [o lhe question whether in the conditions prevailing in the market he would offer the same market value os the tourt has proposed. " L

17. In tl'rc instant case, if the aforesaid aspects as enumerated by the Hon'ble Suprerne Courl are considered while determining the market value of the acquired land, this Court is of the opinion that thc respondent/clairrant is able to establish the nature ofuse of I t ' lrsez; o scc + r i! I I I I I I I i I I I 8 AKS, J & I,NA, J LAAS.No.86 of20t6 6' O. acquired property i.e., it being used for comtrercial purpose as on the date of a(1) notification and its location in a prominent commercial area in Hyderabad city.

18. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, this Court deems that ends of justice would be met, if the market value of the subject acquired land is fixed @ Rs.12,000/- per square yard, which is just and reasonable,

19. Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of and the impugned order of the Reference Cot:rt is modified, decreasing the compensation from Rs.17,600/- per square yard to Rs'12,000/- per square yard for the subject acquired land. The remaining portion of the impugned order remains unaltered. It is ncedless to note that the respondent/claimant is entitled to all the benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1854, on the modified market value' 20. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The ll Additional chief Judge. City civil courts, Hyderabad. (with records, if any) ..t ,i

2. fwo CCs to GP FO Hyderabad [OUT] R. .EALS High Court for the State of Telangana at (^

3. One CC to Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies \ kam/gh

04. .!':-+ia. e ) t HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.86 of 2016 o?. THE S14 i4: a :J 3 0 APn ilt25 f\ r l.' Os !:t7r1 .._ ) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL D. ').' qA I lcaQ^D f '1,/ [ 3413 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No: 86 of 2016 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, , Hyderabad, Hyderabad. AND Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of ...Petitioner/Respondent Topaz Welfare Association (Regd), Panjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082, Rep by its President A G S.Reddy. Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A. Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-12-2014 passed in O.P No 1 174 of 2013 on the fite of the Court of the ll Additional Chief Judge, Crty Civil Courts, Hyderabad ...Respondents/Petitioners This appeal coming on for hearrng and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is disposed of and the impugned order of the Reference Court be and hereby is modified, decreasing the compensation from Rs.17,600/- per square yard to Rs.12,000/- per square yard for the subject acquired land;

2. That the remaining portion of the impugnrrd order remains unaltered,

3. That the respondenUclaimant be and hereby is entifled to all the benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1854, on the modrfied market value; and

4. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO o NT REGISTRAR (j SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies {n- .\ HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 DECREE LAAS.No.86 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL (L @lu{ h