The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 ;. ) The Soecial Deoutv Collector, L A. Unit, L M D Colony' Karimnagar Now Soeciai Deputy Coll6ctor. L.A Unit, S C Railway' Karrmnagar i[;-ilttitentral Railwav Repby its G6neral Manager' Railnilayam' Secunderabad iiY"nlir""iiSiiis impleaded as per the Hon'ble Court order dated 21 09 2013 made'in L A A S M P No 1250 of 2013) -.A''ELLANT/REFERRING oFFlcER AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 o Anumula Bhoomaiah, S/o. Mallaiah . Anumula Narsaiah, S/o. Gattaiah . Anumula Adi ReddY, S/o. Gattaiah . ff,ommanoru Narsimha Rao, S/o' Gurumurthy . Naoireddv PaPaiah, S/o- Lingaiah 1 1 trtadireddir Aniruthamma Wo Narayana Yeria Raii Reddy S/o Bhoomaiah Arioela L'axmi Wo Narsaiah . Ari6ela Bhoomaiah S/o Nallagonda o. KaEhem Krishnamurthy S/o Raghuramatan i . Vemula Mallesham S/o Mallaiah (Died) LRs 1ti&1 / 12. Raoi Anasuva Wo Raiesham r 5. C.V.SaOasfriva Rao Slo S V.Samashiva Rao l4.Arioela Bhoomaiah S/o Nallagonda '15. Ga"dhe Adi ReddY S/o Agaiah 16-Vemula Kousalva Wio Mallesham 17. Vemula Vishnuinurthy S/o Mallesham ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS C.M.P. NO:356 3 0F 2004 PetitionunderSection,l5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant stayofallfurtherproceedingsincludingexecutionofthedecreedt:13/6/03passet in OP.NO.113/9i orr the file of the learned Sr Civil Judge, Karinrnagar pending_ disposal of the airovr-. appeal. CROSS OBJECTIO Between: R No.3389 of 2009 The Special Dep, ty t) cllector/L.A.O., LA Unit, South Centrat Railway, New B.G.Line, Ka rimnaga r. ...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER AND District Karimnagar' Re'inue [Vlandal, Karimnaqar District Revnue M 'rndai, Karimnagar District '1. Anumula Elhoorraiah, Sio. Mallaiah R/o Gopalpur, H/o Dursherj, V/o 2. Anumula-trJarsa ah, S/o. Gatt{ah R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshed. V/o Karimnagar 3. Anumula I'Ji Rcddy, S/o. Gattaiah R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshed, V/o _ Karimnaga ' Re),nu. tVIandal, Karimnagar Disirict 4. Thommanr;ru Narsimha Rao, Sio. Gurumurthy Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar 5 Nagireddy ,qpeiah, S/o. Lingaiah R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshed, V/o 6. Nagireddy ,\mrr" thamma W/o Narayana R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshed, V/o _ Karimnaga. Rer nue Mandal, Karininagar Distriit 7. Y,erra Raji tleddy S/o Bhoomaiah R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshed, y'/o Karimnagar Rernue Mandal, Karimnagar'Diitrict 8. Arigela La):xi \A'lo Narsaiah R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshed, V/o Karimnagar 9. Arigela Bhr:ornaiah Sio Nallagonda R/o Gopalpur, H/o Durshec, V/o '10. Kachem Kr shr: murthy S/o Raghuram-aiah Karimnagar Town. (arimnagar Karimnaga Revnue Mandal, Karimnaqar'Didtrict Karimnagar Rev nue Mandal, karimnaoar Distiict Revnue Mandal Karimnagar Diskici District Mandal, Ka imnirgar District - 1'1.Vemula lVlzr lesham S/o Mallaiah (Died) LRs 16&i7 12 Ragi4nasuya \ltlo Rajestram Kaiimnagar Town and Karimnagar District 13. G.V.Sadas riva llao S/o S.V.Samashiva Rao R/o Naqunur V/J (arimnaoar '14. A-rigela Bhocma ah S/o Nallagonda R/o Bommakal, V/o Karimnagar Reienue 15 9g9fq Adi lledcy S/o Agaiah V/o Karimnagar Revenue [\,4andat, Karimnagar 16 Vemula Ko.rsalya W/o lallesl.r.am, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagyar District 1 7 Vemuta Vis I rn u.rr u rthy s/o Ma|tesham, 11arimnagflrlffi ,[tI;?en,?filtl District

Counsel for the Appellants : SMT. T SUHASINI S.C. FOR RAILWAYS Counsel forthe Flespondent Nos.1,4,5,6,9,10, 16&17g : SRI V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Ftaspcrndent Nos.2, 7,.15 : SRI M.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER rl:' ,11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.3869 of 2OO3 AND X-OBJECTIONS SRI No.3389 of2OO9 COMMON JUDGMENT: fi:er Hon'ble Smt. Justice Titmota Devi Dada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Actl is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar aggrieved by the order and decree dated

13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No. 1 13 of 1997 by the Iearned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial CourtJ.

2. The appellant - Special Deputy Collector is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,800/- per acre that was granted by the Land Acquisition Oflicer to that of Rs.1,46,000/- per acre.

3. X-Objections are fi1ed by the respondents - claimants praying for enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,0O,00O/-. It is their contention that the lands which were acquired are useful for residential house purposes and that the Court below while enhancing the market value ought to have considered that the neighbouring lands are sold for residential houses, medical, educational institutions, industrial and -'-: 2 AKS,J & ETD,J commercii:1 e s tablishments and that documentar5- evlCence was filed to t]'e sirid effect. It is their further contentiolt that the acquired lanc s in subject matter O.p.No.04 of lggg were purchasec bv r.he claimants therein by forming into hour;e building society an,l nt rny plots were sold in the year 19gg and that the acquisitior ha,t taken place when the construction ,,r,al; about to get startecl ar rl in the vicinity there were rice mills, potLltry farms and dai4. 1arms. They further contended that the evidence of pWs 1 to 5 and thr: documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to ,A9 ought to have been :onsidered by the Court below. That the lands acquired are situater I r ( arer to Karimnagar Town and that they are just 1 KM away' lrorr the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and that during the. pe rLdency of the acquisition proceedings the area in which the acrl rired lands are situated, was brought rrnder the purview of tht: Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar. Iherefore, they prayec fo- enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00.000/_ per acre.

4. For c,;nvenience and clarity, the parties herein arc r eferred to as they q,er': arlaved before the trial Court.

5. The acls of the case in brief are that basect on the requisition ma cle by the Deputy Chief Engineer South Central Railway, lrrr-d to an extent of Ac.29.16 guntas situateci in the limits 3 AKs,J & ETD,J of Bommaka1 village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired, for the purpose of laying railway line. A draft notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act on 17'10.1995 in the Gazette and on 14.L1.1995 in the local news paper' After conducting the due enquiry, the LAO has hxed the market value of the land as Rs.16,800/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the trial Court.

6. The trial Court has framed the following point for consideration: "Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, at what rate?"

7. The claimants before the trial Court got examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.Al to A10 were marked. One Manzoor Ahmed, Special Deputy Collector, Lald Acquisition Unit, S.C.Rai1way, Karimnagar got examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and 82 were marked'

8. Based on the evidence on record, the tfial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,80O/- per acre to Rs. 1,46,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal' .-'/ I i I I I 4 AKS,J & ETD,]

9. Hea -d t.re submissions of Ms.T.Suhasini, learnerl Standing Counsel f',r tLe appellants and Sri V.R.Avula, learned r:ounsel for the respon den ,s.

10. The lea:red appellant counsel has argued that the trial court has not <:c,nsidered the evidence adduced by the resirond ents / Land Acquisitio. L Of;rcer and that it has simply passed the alrard based on the sal() de:ds filed by t1.e claimants and simpl1. believed their evidence a -rd L as awarded the exorbitant amount of Rs. l,46,000/_ per acre a rd t.as therefore, prayed to set aside the arvzLrd passed by the trial Cc,rrrr by allowing the appeal. 1 1. The lear-red respondents counsel, on the other rand, has filed crossr ol:. ections and submitted that the trial (lourt has granted . nt,lager amount of compensation, and that the documenls; fiL:rl by the claimants are not properly considered and has therefrrre, lrrayed this Court to enhance the compensation.

12. Corrs;ider ng the above facts, the grounds raiseci in r.he appeal and the )i-ob,j:ctions of the claimants, this Court fr.ames the following p:rin1s for consideration: 1 . W eether the claimants are entitled for 2. W:'rether the trial Court,s order and decree need en t.ancement of compensation? an1 interference? "\3. To .r,hat relief.2 5 AKs,J & ETD,J a.

13. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the record reveals that the lald was acquired for the purpose of formation of New Broad Gauge Railway Line and a vast extent of Ac.29-16 guntas situated in the limits of Bommakal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired. Exs.A1 to A7 are the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants. Under Ex.Al, dated O9.03.1994 an extent of 133.33 Sq'Yards in survey No. 126 was sold @Rs.35/- per square yard for a total amount of Rs.4,67Ol- Under Ex.A2, dated 25.O3.L994 an extent of 4OO Sq.Yards in survey No.39, Plot Nos.31 and 32 was sold @ Rs.50/- per Square Yard for a total amount of Rs.20,000/-. Under Ex.A3, dated 31.03.1994 an extent of 242 Sq.Yards in survey No.738 was sold @ Rs.80/- per square yard, for a total amount of Rs. 19,360l-. Under Ex.A4, dated 06.07. 1994 totaJ, an extent of 400 sq.yards in survey No.38 and 39, plot Nos.68 part and 69, was sold @Rs.85/- per square yard, for an amount of Rs.34,000/-. Under Ex.AS, dated 17.10.1994 ao extent of 200 sq.yards in survey No.41, Plot No.44 was sold @Rs.4O/- per square yard, for an amount of Rs.8,0OO/-. Under Ex.A6, dated 23.O2.1995 arr extent of 466.67 Sq.Yards in plot bearing Nos.77 and 76 (which form a compact block) in survey No.76 was sold @Rs.as/- per square yard, for an amount of Rs.21,100/-. Under Ex.A7, dated 09.1 f. i995 an extent of 7O7O-17 Sq.Yards in survey No.748lB was sold @Rs.413.2O/- \ l 7 AK5,] & ETD,j SRSP Cani Water and as the said lands were fertile, rhey used to cultivate clriiir:r;, ground nut, vegetables and cotton cropl; ancl earn a net annrral income of Rs.3O,000/- to Rs.40,000/ per acre per year. PW:l is the vendee of sale deed under trx.A3 and I)W4 is the attestor of sale deed under Ex.A6 and they deposed abotrt the said sale trans:.ctirt es. Nothing much was elicited during t heir cross examinatic -i t,r discredit their evidence. pws is an Architect who has assesst:d ttLe value of wells in the lands under Exs.A9 and A10. There is no challenge about the said estimations made n.ith regard to the wellli in the appeal. d) RW I in his cross examination has admittecl that the acquired ler nds are situated at a distarrce of about 4 l(Ms from Karimnaga to.,r n e) Karrr:-nagar is the District headquarters and Bommakal village is of 4 KMs from the nrain city. s tuirl ed at a distance Obviously he Lrnds would fetch good returns and as it is observed through th: sit.e transactions under Exs.Al to A7, tht:y are of much higher villue than what is awarded by the Land Ar:quisition Officer ) i 6 AKS,' & ETD,J 0 A perusal of Ex.Bl, the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer discloses that he has taken the statistics of the sales pertaining to the years 1994 and 1995, wherein the price of the lands ranged from Rs.16,000/- per acre to that of Rs.2O,OO,684/- per acre, which shows that there is wide range in the price of the lald situated in the said village However' the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration' two statistics i,e. one at S1.No.278 which discloses that the sale transaction pertains to 13.09.1994, wherein the market value is shown to be Rs. 16,563/- per acre. So also, he has considered the sale transaction at S1.No.566, which discloses that the market value is shown to be Rs.16,800/- per acre' The Land Acquisition Ofhcer has taken these two sale transactions into consideration ignoring ail others on record though he is supposed to take into consideration the highest sale value of the land portrayed in the sale statistics pertaining to that village' In this regard' it is apt to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Mehrautal Rheanji TYust u. State of hrbJabl , wherein it is held as under: "When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rrrle that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona frde transaction' \ hr" to be consid.ered and accePted " \ '(zorz) s scc +:z 9 AKS,J & ETD,I d In tlre considerec p resent case, the highest of the exemplars is not by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer rvhile awarding compensal on h) Thus, ccnsidering the evidence adduced by the claimants under Exs {1 tc A7 and also the sale transactions disclosed in the statistics u ndo:- Ex. B 1 , it is revealed that the lands at Ilommakal village fetr: h :rrore value, than what is awarded bv the Land it is held that the clairnants are Acquisitior OlTLcer and hence, entitled fc - t:nhancement in compensation and the amount awarded br thr: reference Court i.e. Rs.1,46,O00/- is held to be justifiable a morLnt. i) It u:a ; crt etended by the learned appellant counse I that the sale transa,;tiorrs shown in bits and pieces cannot be teLken as a standard to fi-:. the market value over a vast extent of 1a,nd. It is relevant to refe r to the judgments of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Land. AcEzisittion Officer, Reaenue Dlvislonal Officer a. L.Kannrrlqrrtmqt and Ttishala Jain u. State of tlttaranaha?. j) In Larrd Acquisition OfIicer, Rewenue Divisional Officer,s case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 'z (1998) 2 Suprenr e Cou .t Cases 38S '1zotr1 o scc +z : I 10 AKS,.] & ETD,I "6. ,..when no sales of comparable land were awailable where large chunks of land had been so1d, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by makilg approPriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in information of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for setling the sites that would be formed". k) ln TH.sha,la Jaln v. State oJ Uttaranchal's case (supra 2), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "The sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits". 1) Thus, when no other comparable documents are available, the sale transactions involving smaller extents of land can be considered by allowing reasonable deductions, if they are similar in potentiality, utilization, amenities and infrasbucture. Based on the said principle, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,000/- to that of Rs. 1,46,0001- per acre and hence, the same is held to be justilied. Point No' 1 is answered accordingly'

14. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No'1, this Court holds that the trial Court's order arrd decree do not need any interference. 11 AKS,J & ETD,J

15. POIIfT NO.3: In tl e r'esulr, the appeal and the X-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed upholding the order and der rree dated

13.06.2001' passed in O.P.No.1 13 of l99T by the learred Senior Civil Judger at llarimnagar. No costs. Miscr:llaneous P_,etitions pe-_nding, if any, shall stand closed. / Sd/. M. RAMANA KR4SHNA DEPUTY R.EGIbTRAR //TRUE COPYII V SECI'ION OFFICER r'".i To, 1 2 J 4 E Ks/gh The S_enior )ivil Judge at Karimnagar (With Records) Qn" 99 to rim1.'- srlrrini, S C foina)rw;;; io;ijti One CC to liri V R Avuta Advoc;te (oFrid)'"' -"r gne 99 to iiri M.tr/adhava Reddy , Rbvocaie (OPUC) Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 COMMON.IUDGMENT 1t.. s rA r AS.No.386!l of 2003 AND X-OBJECTIONS (SR)No.3389 of 2009 ' Uri I [25 c , rL-o- -, -i, Dismissing the Appeal Suit and Gross Objections. Without costs.