High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N RAGHAVAN The Court detivered the following: Judgment I HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AI-ISHETTY LAAS.No.455 of 20 l3 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Juslice Lqxmi Nardyano Atishelty) Heard leamed Government pleader for Appeal ; appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri N.Raghavan, learned counsel lor the respondents/claimants.

2. This appeal, under Secrion 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for shor|rhe Act') is fited by the Land Acquisi.ion Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.04.2013 passed in LAOP.No.683 of 2008 on rhe file of the II Additional District Judge. Ranga li.eddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that total land arlmeasuring Acs.20.34 guntas covered by various survey numbers, which includes the lands admeasuring Ac.0.l2 guntas be longing to claimant No. I and Ac.0.06 guntas each belonging lo claimant Nos.2 ro 5 in Sy.No.299 of Mamidipally Viilage, S.aroornagar_ Mandal. I-lyderabad District, rvere acquired by the Govcrnment for. 2 AKS,J&LA:A J l,,tAS.No 155 of )013 development of P7 Road at Mailarderpally to Srisailam Road via Jalpally; that Draft Notification under Section a(1) of the Act was \ published in A.P. Gazette on 21.04.2007; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, vide proceedings No.C/l7107, dated 05.10.2007, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre.

4. The claimants received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.683 of 2008 on the file of the Reference Court

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellant- Referring Offrcer, R.W- 1 was examined, but no document was marked, and on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-l to A-4 were marked.

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court allowed the LAOP enhancing the market value of the acquired land from I 3 AK\ J&LNA,J I AS.No aj5 af20t 3 Rs.40,00,000/- per acre to Rs.50,00,000/_ per acre. Aggrieved thereby' the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisiti rn officer. 7. Learned Government pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court having ignored the sale deeds bearing document Nos.5g3 and 584 of 2007, dated 1g.01.2007, erred in enhar cing the compensation; that the Reference Court failed to take n tte of the fact that no comparable sale deeds were marked on beh alf of the claimants; and as such, the enhancement of the market varue of the acquired [and made b_y the Reference Court is not base I on any evidence. He further contended that the Reference Cour.t ras erred in nor considering the Award passed by the Land Ac quisition Officer in proper perspective and prayed this Court to alls\a, 1111. Appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/c iaimants contended that the l(eference Court taking into considera rion the potentiality of the acquirecl land, rightry herd that rhe mark:r varue fixed for the acquired land by the Land Acquisition officer.is low, and accordingly, enhanced the sarne. Learned counsel, th,.:refore, l ) I I I I I I J i i 4 ,{A.t Jd a\.{. J LAAS \o 155 ol:All &. contended that no grounds are made out in the Appeal warranting interference of this Court with the irnpugned order and as such, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. It is the case of the claimants that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is unreasonable and meager and hence, the burden is upon them to prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the one fixed by the Reference Court. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to rhe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector and anolher etc., v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao ond otherst, wherein it is held as hereunder:- "....Burden of prooJ' is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensotion than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Ofi.cer, which is only an offer. If the Award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence on the basts of the human conduct, even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Offcer to ossess the market value applying tlrc relevant tests laid down by this Court in head role of decis ions 'AIR 1997 5C2625 5 AKSJ&LI'4.J L.l 1S.No !55 of 20t 3 ..... The burden of proof that the amount awarded by he Land Acqui.;ition Oficer/Collector is not adequate is always on the claimonts. The burden is to aclclrce relevant and malerial evidence to establish that ihe acquired lands ore capable of fetching higher marl:et value than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisitttn Oficer/Collector or that rhe Land Acquisititn Officer/Collector proceeded on wrong premises cr opplied a wrong principle of taw ....

10. [n the case on hand, the claimants have got t remselves examined as P.Ws-l to 5, besides examining one realto. by name Chandrasekhar as p.W-6. p.Ws. I to 5 reiterated the cont:nts made in the Claim Petition intcr alia to lhe effect that the acqui;.ed land is near to Airport and also Hyderabad city; and that the acq.rired land is in developing area. In support of their self_testinrony, the claimants have not chosen to file Village map or Road map in order to ascertain the actual distance, as clairned by them. 1 1. P.W-6, who is a real estate dealer, deposed that he purchased the land in the localitl, of the subject acquired land and has converted the same into house plots. However, no docum,)nts were marked through the said witness in support of his statemert. i t j l I I 6 AKS,J&L,'i,,| J l.AlS.No 455 ol20tj (

12. As regards the documents marked on behalf of the claimants, the same shows that Ex.A-l is the Basic Value Register, however, the said document cannot be considered for determination of the market value of the acquired land in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodardas2,

13. The claimants sought to rely upon Ex.A-2-Application made by Hyderabad Airport Development Authority to the Executive Authority, i.e., Mamidipally Gram Panchayat and A-3-Letrer addressed by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority to the Executive Authority i.e., Mamidipally Gram Panchayat, to show the potentiality of the acquired land and its surroundings thereof.

14. Leamed counsel for the claimants contended that taking into consideration the very purpose for which the subject land ls acquired, the Reference Court has rightly concluded that the acquired land is a developed area and has potentiality of development and accordingly, rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. .(2022) r4 SCC 60 7 AKS J&LI\:,1.J Ltlt No.455 aI20l3 t5. Rebutting the said contention, learned Governme rt pleader for Appeals contended that the Reference Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired land on surmises and conj,.:ctures, in the absence of any evidence to show the potentiali _y of the acquired land and therefore, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisitior Officer. 16. On perusal of the entire material available on recoi.d and the impugned order of the Reference Court, this Couft finds that the claimants have not adduced any evidence or placed any r,aterial on record to ascertain the actual distance from the acquireC land to Intemational Airport and Hyderabad city to show the potentiality of the acquired land, however, the Reference Court made a hypothetical guess work and enhanced the market valrre of the acquired Iand. 17 . That apart, a perusal of Award passed by t he Land Acquisition Officer shows that as many as 794 sale deecs for the relevant period of three years i.e., from 2004 to 2007, pnor to the date of4(l) notification, were referred to and analyzed by the Land Acquisition Olficer for determination of the market vahre of the acquired [and. In fact, the Land Acquisition Olfi< er a{ter I 8 AKS, J & LNl J LAAS.No 455 of 201 3 thoroughly examining all the sale deeds and after considering the similarities between the lands covered by the said sale deeds and the present acquired land, adopted the sale deeds mentioned at Subject land.No.s773 to 775,786, 7g7, 790 to 792, which reflects the highest market value @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre and accordingly, fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre.

18. The claimants except relying upon Exs.A-2 and A-3, to show the potentiality of the acquired land, have not got marked any sale deed pertaining to the relevant period to substantiate their claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired land.

19. The claimants except contending that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is exorbitantly low, were unable to discharge the burden cast upon them to prove that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer is not adequate. Alt the same, the burden is on the claimants to adduce relevant and rnaterial evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer or that the Land Acquisition Officer ploceeded on wrong premises or applied I 9 \ \,t t55 o/)0ti a wrong principle of law, rvhich was confirmed by the Ref.erence Court

20. On the face of record, it is evident that the claiu rants were unsuccessfur in discharging such burden cast on .hem and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Reference Court has erred in enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide Award dated 05.10.2007, and )ence, the impugned order of the Ref-crence Court is liable to be set irside. 21. Accordingly, rhis Appeal allowed, setting aside the tmpugned order and consequently, the Award, vide pr, rceedings No.C/I7107, dared 05. IO.2OO7, passed by rhe Land A:quisition Officer fixing the market value of the acquir ed tand @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre is confirmed. However, the :laimants are entitled to all the benefits under the Land Acquisi.ion Act,

1894. 22 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if r ny, shalt stand closed. No costs. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, l The chairman MACT cum., Additionar district Judge, Rangir Reddy District, . gl L B^Iugrr(With records, if any) ' ,Xr""?rtll",therGP FoR APPEALd' Hish court for the state rf retangana at ? 9n" CC to SRt N RAGHAVAN, Advocate [OpUCl 4. Two CD Copies ECTION OFFICER U e ? HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.455 of 20'13 ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 2 DRAFTS IHE S14 'Qt 1R 1 E Jt:i I t c .r) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD p ,( \v FRIDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVIL{ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I-AND ACQUTSITION FIRST AP PEAL NO: 455 OF 2013 Between: The. Special. Deputy.Collector (1A.,), Land Acquisition Olfficer, lntemational (Air port) Shamshabad MAndal, R.R.District. ...AppellanUReferring Officer AND 1 K.Venkateshwara Gupta, S/o. K.Ratnam, Occ: Business Rtio. H.No. 6-3-24BlH, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. 2 M.Nageshwara Rao, S/o. M.Narasaiah, Occ: Retired, Rl/o. H.No. 6-3-2481A, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

3. M.Ananthalakshmi, Wo. M.Nageshwara Rao, Occ: Housewife Ri/o. H.No. 6-3-2481N1, Road No.1, Banjaia Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. 4 N.Surya Kumari, Wo. DT.NPVS Raju, R:/o. 1319, Road No. 68, Jubill Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Pr.Y Padmavathi, D/o. Dr. NPVS Raju, Rt/o. '1319, Road No. 68, Jubill Hiils, Hyderabad. .Respondents/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 against the Order and decree dated 03.04.2013 made in OP.No.683 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Chairman MACT cum ll Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing 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 Appellant and ofSRl N RAGHAVAN, Advocate forthe Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently, the Award, vide proceedings No.c/17107, dated 05.10.2007, passed by tre Land Acquisition officer fixing the market varue of the acquired rand @Rs.4.0,00,000i- per acre is confirmed; .

2. That However, the claimants are enti ed to all the bene,its under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO T?NT REGISTRAR -.. i\l seITION OFFICER ..: -_--- To

1. The chairman MACT cum il Additionar district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar 2. Two CD Copies ADIqPSL HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE LAAS.No.4SS of 2013 ALLOWING THE LAAS WTHOUT COSTS (- 91 x\