The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in filing the above appeal in judgment and decree dated 17- 07-2010 in LAOP.No.1412006 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above LAAS. Counsel for the Appellant : The Assistant GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent : Sri T V L Narasimha Rao The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABIIINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.Nos.743 of 2010 ard92 of 2012 COMMON JUDGMENT: per Hon'ble Sri Justice Lqxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Sri T.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the claimant and learned Assistant Goverrunent Pleader for Appeals appearing for the Land Acquisition OfIcer

2. LAAS.Nos.743 ol 20i0 and92 of 2012, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity 'the Act'), are filed by the claimant and the Land Acquisition Officer, respectively, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.07.2010 passed in L.A.O.P.No.14 of 2006 on the file of the Ist Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court").

3. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Reference Court.

4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-ll, MCH, the premises bearing No.2 l/5/16/l to 16 at Muslim Jung bridge, opposite to City College, Hyderabad, belonging to the claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Approach road to the bridge parallel to l* : AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS Nos.743 of20t0 & 92 of20t2 Muslim Jung bridge at City College, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad; lhat Draft notification under Section 4(l) of rhe Act was published in A.p. Gazette on 16.0g.2005; that Draft dedlaration under Section 6 ol the Act was published in A.p. Gazette on 17.08.2005; and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on cdnducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Offlcer passed Award No.A/36l2005 dated 25.0 1 .2006, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,4601 per square yard and the market value of the structure existing in the acquired land as Rs.59,85,744/-. 5. The claimant received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 1 8 ol the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court, rvhich was numbered as LAOp.No.l 4 of 2006. 6. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimant, he himself got examined as p.W. 1 and got Exs.A_l to A_26.marked. On behalf of'the Referring Officer, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Cou( enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,460/_ per square yard to I J AKS,J&LNA,J LA,4S.Nos.713 oJ 2010 &92 of20l2 Rs.12,000/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimant. Seeking fuither enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired land as well as the structure existing on the acquired land, LAAS.No.743 of 2010 is filed by the qlaimant, whereas contending that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court is on higher side and seeking to set aside the impugned order, LAAS.No.92 of 2012 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

8. Learned counsel for the claimant inter alia contetded that the Reference Court failed to take into consideration Exs.A-l 1, A-13 and A-14, which peftain to properlies located on the main road and erred in relying upon Exs.A-22 and A-26, which pertain to small extents of lands located in the interior roads and thus, it erroneously fixed the market value of the acquired propeny @ Rs.12,000/- per square yard instead of Rs.25,000/- per square yard. He further contended that the Reference Court, based on Ex.A-6-Valrlation Report, ought to have awarded Rs.66,64,615/_ towards compensation for the structure existing on the acquired land instead of Rs.59,85,74 4/-. By contending thus, leamed counsel sOught interference of this Court to enhance the market value of the \ 4 AKS, J & LNA, J LA,1S.),ios 743 ol20l0 a 92 of 201 2 acquired land as well as the structure existing thereon as was fixed by the Reference Court.

9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer contel.Ided that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that Ex.A-22 I document pertains to transaction which was just five days prior to issuance of 4r.l) notification and thus, erred in relying upon Ex.A-22 for fixing the market value of the acquired properly and hence, the impugned order of the Reference Courl is liable to be set aside by confirming the market value as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

10. This C'ourt gave its anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parlies and has thoroughly perused the entire evidence and material available on record.

11. As could be seen from the impugned order, it is evident that the claimant has got marked as many as 26 documents before the Reference Couft, i.e., Exs.A-i to A-26 and out of the said documents, Exs.A-S to ,4-16 and A-19 to A-26 are Valuation ) AKS,J&LNA,J L/lAS.Nos.743 oJ 2010 & 92 ol20l2 Certificates issued by the Sub-Registrar's Office concerned. Exs.A-l7 and A-18 are the gift settlement deeds.

12. Exs.A-8 to A-16 and A-19 to A-26-Valuation Certificates are issued by the Sub-Registrar's Office concemed based upon the Basic Value Register. I 3. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the afore said Valuation Certificates can form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land as was considered by the Reference Court in the impugned order' The said issue has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodarulast , wherein it is held as under: "There may be various factors, which are required to he considered for determining the market ttalue of the land. The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land: whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageotn and disadvantageous factors are required to be cons idered. Therefore, there cannot be the same market value for the dffirent lands while determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. '(2022) 14 SCC 60 6 AKS,J&LNA,J l.,t.4s Nos /'a 3 o./2a10 & 92 of20t2 Therefore, the rates mentioned in the Ready Rec.koner, which are basically for the purpose of collection oJ' stamp duty and as obseryed hereinabove, which are the unform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for detern'tination of the cotmpensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. "

14. In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the valuation certiflcate issued by the Sub-Registrar, on the basis of the Basic Valuation Register, was only relevant for the purpose of the Stamp Act and that, such a valuation certificate cannot form basis for determination of the market value under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, Exs.A_g to A-16 and A-19 to 4-26 cannot be considered for determination of market value ot'the acquired land.

15. The market value of the property mentioned in Exs.A_I7 and A-18-Gift settlement deeds is only for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, as, admiuedly, no consideration is involyed in gift deed. As such, Exs.A-17 and A-18 cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of the acquired land.

16. As regards the compensation granted by the Reference Court for thestructure existing on the acquired land, it is to be noted that 7 AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS.No:.7a3 oJ20l0 & 92 oJ 2012 the Executive Engineer PD-1, MCH, Hyderabad, has inspected the subject structure and assessed the value of the same as Rs.59,85,744l- and taking into account the said report' the Reference Court granted compensation of Rs'59,85'7441- for the structure existing in the acquired land'

17. The claimant sought to rely upon Ex'A-6-Valuation report' ! whereunder the value of the structure in the acquired land is shown as Rs.66,64,615/- and after deducting the depreciation value for 33 years, i.e., from 1972 to 2005 i.e., till the date of acquisition' the present value of the structure was estimated at Rs'41,90,3771'

18. Thus, though as per Ex.A-6, it is clear that the present value of the structure is Rs.41,90,3771-,the appellant/claimant is seeking to enhance the compensation of Rs'59,85 ,7 441- awarded by the Reference Court. We are unable to understand as to how Ex'A-6 supports the stand of the appellant/claimant' Therefore' the said aspect needs no interference by this Court'

19. In the light of the above discussion and reasons, this Court isoftheconsideredopinionthatbothAppealsaredevoidofmerit and are liable to be dismissed. 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LnlS.Nos.713 ol20 t 0 & 92 of20t2

20. Accordingly, both Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs 2t. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, ii. any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.G.S.M. SARMA OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (with records, if any) 2. Two CCs to the GP for Appeals, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri T V L Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ To, Vtuoh w I I I I .! a I HIGH COURI" DATED:2410112025 COMMON JUDGMENT + COMMON DECREE LAAS.Nos.743 ot 2010 & 92 of 2012 (2 DRAFTS ) 1 k\E ST4 ')16 o 21 ilAn 2m C) ], t D t: arPA f , DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS O 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 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS NOS: 743 OF 2010 AND 92 OF 2012 Appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the Order and Decree dated 17-07 -2010 made in LA.O.P.No.14 oI 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Coutls, Hyderabad. LAAS NO: 743 OF 2010 Between: Sunil Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Shanker Lal Gupta, Aged about 52 years, Occ Business, R/o. Plot No.462, Road No. 19, Jubilee Hills Hyderabab-s00 033 AND ...Appellant / Claimant Competent Authority & Special Deputy Collector (LA), Land Acquisition, Head Office, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad ...Respondent / Reference Officer L.A.A.S. NO: 92 OF 2012 Betvveen: Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition tvlCH, Hyderabad AND Sunil Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Shanker Lal Gupta, Aged 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No. 462, Road No.'19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ...Appellant / Referring Officer ...Respondent / Claimant ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri T v L Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Appellant in LAAS No. 743 oI.2O1O & Respondent in LAAS No.92 ot 2012 and of Assistant GP for Appeals, Advocate for the Respondent in LAAS No. 743 of 2010 & Appellant in LAAS No. 92oI 2012. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That both the Appeals be and the same are hereby dismissed; and 2. That'there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA INT REGISTRAR J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. fwo CD Copies @i HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 t' ! COMMON DECREE LAAS.Nos.743 of 2010 & 92 of 2012 DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS loF