The High Court · 2025

Sri Satish Kumar. S/o. C Raghunath Rao, Aged about 33 years, Occuoation i;[3BTf" R:/o.H.No.'r0-7-i56lr;r.i;#k;r"dJiriiig:'rrt"hnasar, Sri M Lakshmin atavana. S/g, lrtu M Malla Rao, Aged about 76 years, ffi b6'Xi"c r,ir*,'ip, ii i, "' ffS:L*T,St6 ri ris, Rvo r-m.r o L - 5rb: "d; Hyderabad I il[ffi :'d?s[1,1?6:,y51-**fl_ffi ,lp,",,1,:,.:y:*3",,?:,*,".."%g:x"r 500 018 Sri M Venkata Rao. S/o tvt_Laxminarayana, Aged about 4j years, Occupation Fyo r No ro_z_Iso/i, rvJ",i'rl'iH,jiixilt:FI[hnasar, Hydera6ad _ ISl"dl1g N Rajamani, W/o. Late Satyanarayana Neemkar, Aged about 70 vears. j, lv ;#,r? s, i r o i n s, F a re h na g a r, ffi :irttT i%f Sri N Srinivas Neemkar. S/o..Late-Tuljaram Neemkar, Aged about 61 vears. ffi :l# :t -t'.tt';' ruo H rrr o io - 7- G5:' i'j # ffi 'd ; ird;;s; Hi; ;; Jd:'' ewire, nyri n -r.r o i o i i t crl Smt Savitri Bai. Wo. Eswal Housewife, Rl/o.H.No 10_7_rss-, r.r"J,i,iJ, drliiid,'Fli;nrasar, Hyderabad _ 5oo 018 l^ao.,.Aged about 83 years, Occupation vurrvrr rv' I q(E . . $f,l}if llqHeifl '1"!'93';;514i3fi:€'^?;I:n',;,;tu,,.u"nd,",MrNpS State Bank of Hyderabad. Rep qy its Assistant General Malager O/o. Industriat Branch, Sanathnagi r, F{yd;i; b;;'-' " ...Respondents / Claimant t.A. NO:'l OF 2012( LAAS MP. NO :4O7 OF 20121 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of a[ fu(her proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree rendered rn LAOP No. 36 0f 2002, dated 11-08-2010 0n the fire of rst Senior civir Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad incruding the Execution proceedings in Ep No. 170 0t 2010 on the file of the Same, Court, pending disposal of the Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents GP for Appeals Sri Sunil B Ganu, Senior Counset Rep. Sri Pavuluri Sreenivasulu The Court delivered the following Judgment : * i 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILT AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I,AXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I-AAS.No.564 of 2011 JUDGMENI': grcr Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Atishettyl Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Sunil B.Ganu, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Paluluri Sreenivasulu, leamed counsel for the respondents/claimants. , .

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for shon'the Act') is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.08.2010 passed in t-AOP.No.36 ol 2002 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court').

3. In nut-shell, the i'acts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Project Director, MRTS and Additonal Commissioner (T & T) MCH, lands admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas, equivalent to 4,235 squarc yards, in S,r,.Nos.43, 44 and 54 olFatehnagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which includes the lands belonging to the clainratits. \1'ere acquired for the purpose of developr.nent of Railu,al Station undel N{R.I'S Pro.iect; that draft .4KS.J&LA'A,J L,lAS ito.561 ol 201 I notification under Section 4(l) of the Act and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act rvere published in A.p. Gazelre on

11.04.2002 and 12.04.2002 respectively; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.E/923l2001, dated 20.06.2002, fixing the marker value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,050/- per square yard. 4. The claimants received the compensation awarded by. the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought ref-erence under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to ttle competent civil Court and numbered as L.A.O.p.No .36 of 2002 on the file of the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. I and 2 were examined and Exs.A- I to A_ l0 rvere marked and on behalf of the Referring Officer, D.W. I was examined and Exs.B- I to B- I 0 were marked.

6. On due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Couft enhanced the market value ofthe acquired land from Rs. 1,050/_ to Rs.6,300/_ per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act, 7 -AKS.J&LNA,J LA,4S N*o 56a of 201 I viz., additional market value, solatium and interest on the enhanced market value. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands, the present appeal is filed by the Land Aequisition Officer.

7. Learned Assistant Govemrnent Pleader contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer in correct perspective; that the Reference Court erred in taking into consideration Ex'A-l0-sale deed, whereunder a meager extent i.e., 1 square yard of land was sold and further, erred in adopting the said sale deed fo5'fixing the market value of the acquired lands; and that the Reference Court erred in taking into account the Valuation Register and thereby' enhancing the market value of the acquired lands though the claimants failed to prove their claim by filing admissible evidence. By contending thus, he prayed to allow this Appeal'

8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing' for the respondents/claimants contended that the Reference Court has enhanced the market value ol the subject acquired lands by appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective; that thetandcoveredbythesaledeedadoptedbytheLandAcquisition I I 4 NKS, J & LA'A,J L,l:15.No.564 ol20l I Officer is situated 4 % kms away from the acquired land and as such, the said sale deed ought not to have been adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was rightly observed by the Reference Court. He further contended that Exs.A_9 and A_10 are sale deeds in respect of lands situated at a distance of about 2 kms and 1.4 kms, respectively, from the subject acquired lands, therefore, the market value reflected therein is rightly taken as yardstick for determining the market value of the acquired.lhnds by the Reference Court. He further contended that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Apropos the above submissions of the Iearned counsel for both the parties, it is to be seen whether the market value fixed by the Reference Coun for the acquired lands represents the true and correct market value prevailing at the relevant time of acquisition.

10. The claimants have got marked as many as ten exhibits before the Reference Court on their behalf in support ot.their claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired [and. In the said exhibits, Exs.A-l, A-2, A-g and A_10 are sale deeds, dated 25.03.2000, 26.07 .200 t, 22.02.2002 and 08.03.2002, respecti vely. 5 AKS.J&LNA.J LAAS.No.564 oI20l I Exs.A-3, A-4 and A-6 are agreements ol sale, Ex.A-5 is Award, dated 20.04.1998, Ex.A-7 is Board Resolution and Ex.A-8 is Valuation in respect ol structures in the acquired lands. Thus, Exs.A-3 to A-8 are not helpful tbr determination oltrue and correct market value of the acquired lands and hence, they merit no consideration. I l. The land covered under Ex.A-2 is situated at Sanathnagar, which is very far away to the acquired lands, compared to the lands covered under the sale deeds, vide Exs.A- I , A-9 and A- l0 and therefore, the same is discarded

12. A perusal ofrecord discloses that the sale deed adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide Award dated 20.06.2002- Ex.B-5, pertains to land situated at Moosapet, which is at a distance of 4.5 kms from the acquired lands, whereas the lands covered under Exs.A- l, and A- l0-sale deeds are situated at Bahloolkhanguda, which is approximately at a distance of 1.4 kms from the acquired lands and the land covered under Ex.A-9 is situated at Ameerpet, which is about 2 kms lrom the acquired lands. Thus, it is clear that the lands covered under E,xs.A- l, 9 and A-10-sale deeds are very proxirnate to the acquired lands compared 6 1KS, J & LNl.J l-.1A5.\o 564 of20l I to the land covered under the sale deed adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer.

13. It is also relevant to note that D.W-l in his evidence admitted that the sale deed adopted by him for fixing the market value of the acquired land is in respect of land situared at a distance of 4 % kns awa)/ from the acquired lands. This very admission of D.W- I proves that he erred in adopting the salc deed which pertains to land situated far away from the acquired lands, whln the sale deeds pertaining to neighbouring lands of the acquired tands during the relevant period of three years preceding ttie clate of4(l) notification are very much available.

14. In the face of availability of sale deeds in respect ol lands proximate to the acquired lands, i.e., Exs.A- I , A-9 and A- i 0, consideration of a sale deed which pertains to land very lar away from the acquired lands by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value of the acquired lands is unjustifiable and untenable

15. This Court finds that in the impugned order. the Reference Court has taken itrto account ExB ,-6-Basic Valuc ILesister issued by the Sub-Registrar concemed coupled with Ex.A-10 lor fixing I 7 AKS,J&1N,1-J LA,'S.\o 56a ol20tI the market value of the acquired land. In the light of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNI Vs. Nemichand Damodardas', E*.8-6 cannot be considered lor determination of the market value of the acquired land and thus, this Court holds that the Reference Court erred in taking Ex.B-6 into consideration for determination of true and correct market value of the acquired land.

16. Now, in order to determine the true and correct market value of the acquired lands, it is to be seen which of the sale deed, vide Exs.A- l, A-9 and A- 10, has to be adopted. 17. Here, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon,ble .. Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of punjab2 wherein it is held that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands. it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted for fixing the market value of the acquired lands.

18. Applying the said ratio to the case on hand, it emerges that Ex.A- l0 reflects the highest sale consideration compared to