The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Anurag Rachapally, SC Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 26: Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.27: ASSISTANT GP FOR APPEALS Counsel forthe Respondents No.28 to 31: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KU]\[AR SHAVILT AND HON'BLIi SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAN;\ ALISHETTY LAAS.No.317 of 2015 JUDGMENT: lpo Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narqyana Alishe y) Hearcl Sri Sri Anurag Rachapalty, learned Standing Counsel appearing lbr the appellant, Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counscl for respondent Nos. I to 26/claimants and the leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader lor Appeals appearing for lespondent No.27-Land Acquisition Officer

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land ,\cquisition Act, Itt94, (for sl'rort 'the Act') is filed by the beneficiary o1'the lands r.rnder acqr.risition being aggrieved by the order and decree dated

02.06.2014 passed in LAOP.No.97 of 20t I on the lile of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial (hereinafter ref'erred to as "the Reference ( ourt' )

3. In nrrt-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition niade b1' the Erecutire Engineer (Con), South (--entral Railway, Karimnagar. the lands, both dry and wet, totally admeasuring Aq. 12.28 ,r guntas situated in Sy.Nos. 1745, 1749, 1752, 1753,

1154. 1156. 1757. 1777 ro 1780, 1782, 228312,2283t4,228315, 2 AKS,J&LNA,J L,t/lS.No I I7 of 201 5 2283/7 and 228318 of Bandalingapur Viltage, FVo Sathakkapally, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to respondent Nos. I to 26lclaimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of new Broad gauge single railway line from Jagtial to Errapur (Phase-Il!; that Draft Notification under Section (l) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 31.12.2007; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.p. Gazette on 04.01.2008; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 18.04.2008; and that after f,ollowing rhe procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.8 ot2008, dated 03.06.200g, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for both dry and wet lands.

4. Respondent Nos.l to 26lclaimants received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent civil Court, which was numbered as LAOP.No.91 of 201I on the file of the Reference Court. l AKS,J&LA'A.J L,4AS.,Yo 317 o/ )015

5. Belbre the Ref-erence Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 26lclaimants, P.Ws-l and 2 were examined and Exs.P- [ and P- 2-sale deeds rvere marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-l was examined and Exs.R-l and R-2 were marked

6. The Rclerence Court, on appreciation of oral and documentarl' evidence, passed the impugned order answering the Relerence in I'avour of the claimants and enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,36,000/- per acre for wet as well as dry lands. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

7. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant, rvhich is the beneficiary of the lands under acquisition, contended that the Relerence Cou rt erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands by placing reliance on Exs.P.l and P-2, without any basis and rnaterial; that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the acqr-rired lands on mere assumptions and presumptions though no cogcnt material was placed by the claimants and therefore, the irnpugned order is illegal and as such. the same is liable to be set aside. 4 AKS,J&LNl,J LAAS L'o 3l t ol 2015

8. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.l to - contended that Reference Court has rightly 26lclaimants appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and having found that the Land Acquisition officer has reried on some irrerevant sale deeds and undervalued the market value of the acquired lands, it has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands by following a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the impugned order is sustainable. Leamed counsel prayed this Court to dismiss the Appeal as the same is devoid of any merits. 9. In order to assess fair and reasonable market value of the acquired lands, it is essential and mandarory to look into the aspects like fertility, potentiality and location of rhe acquired tands and the development of area in its vicinity or its proximity to the developed area. These aspects play a vital role in determining the market value of the acquired lands. 10. Apropos the said aspects, in the instant case, it is to be seen that it is the case of the claimants that the acquired lands are well developed agricultural lands, cultivated with water through pump sets and SRSP Canal and they are rich in fertitity, texrure, high potentiality and are situated in the limits of Ibrahimpatnarn Mandal ) AK',J&LNA,J I l,ls.No 317 oI20l 5 HeadQuartersandnumberofindustrial,educational'residential and commercial establishments are existing in the parallel area to the acquired lands and as such, the acquired lands, which were agricultural lands, u'ere convefled into residential purposes prior to issuance of4(l) noritication; and that ignoring all the said factors' the Land Acquisition Otficer has fixed undervalued market value for the acquired lands. I L The contention of the claimants is that the subject acquired lands were convefted into residential purposes But, under Ex R-1- Award, the l-an<l Accluisition Olficer has awarded compensation for the trees and rvells existing in the subject acquired lands' Hence, this Corrn llnds no truth in the said contention of the claimants. 12- P.W- I . one of the claimants, reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. P.W-2, who is the attestor of Ex'P- l -sale deed, deposccl the contents of the said document and further deposed that the land covered under Ex P-l and the subject acquired lands are similar in nature and are abutting Ibrahirnpatnarn N4andal Hcad quarters' Jl 6 SKS J&LNA,J t.At.t Yo / of )015

13. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim for upon Exs.p-l and p_2_sale enhancement, have relied Ex.P-1 is registered sale deed, dated 30.0g.2005, whereunder an extent of 947 square yards of land in Sy.No.2027lAA of Bandalingapur Village was sold for Rs. 135/_ per square yard, which works out to Rs.6,53 ,400/_ per acre. Similarly, Ex.p_2 is registered sale deed, dated 22.09.2007, whereunder an extenr ol 242 square yards of land in Sy.No.l was sold @ Rs.1 50/_ per square yard, which works out to Rs.7,26,000/_ per acre. Thus, under Exs.p-l and p_2_sale deeds, the lands were sold for house sites on yardage basis. Th e genuineness of the said documents is not disputed. deeds,

14. This Court, on perusing Ex.R_l_Award, found that the Land Acquisition Officer has pslgrrscl to Exs.p_ I and p_2_sale which pertain to sale of lands in Sy.Nos.2027 and [, however, discarded the same on the ground that they pertain to sare of house sites. He relied upon Ex.R_2_sale deed which pertains to sale of land in Sy.No. I I 19 and adopting the value mentioned therein, fixed the market value of the acquired lands. As rightly obsened by thlftference Courr, the lact thar the Land Acquisition Olficer 7 AKS.J&LNA,J LAAS n'o 3t7 of20l5 has referred to as many as 25 sale deeds pertaining to Sathakkapalll . I l,/o Bandalingapur Village, whereunder different extents of land was sold on yardage basis, itself shows that Bandalingapur Village, where the subject lands are acquired, is very proximate to developed area and as such, the subject acquired lands have potcntiality lor house sites. Further, the Relbrence Court atso rightly taken note olthe fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has not chosen to produce the village map to shor.v the distance between the acquired lands and the sale deeds referred to in the Award. I{owc.. cr, the claimants pleaded and were successful in establishing thc fhct that the lands covered under Exs.P- 1 and P-2 and the acquircd lands are proximate to each other and are within the limits of Sathakkapally Village. Hence, when Exs.P-l andP-2- sale deeds werc in respecr of sale of house sites, in the light of the loregoing analvsis, a presumption can be drawn that the subject acquired lands llso havc potentiality for house sites.

15. In such case. the Land Acquisition Officer \\ras not supposed to discard the sale deeds vide Exs.P-l and p-2 merely on the ground that house sites were sold thereunder, rr*,hen it is the categorical casc and in fact, proved by the claimants that the 8 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS No 317 o.l)0t 5 acquired lands, being abutting Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Head Quarters, have potentiality of house sites. 16. P.Ws. I and 2 in one voice deposed reiterating their claim regarding the potentiality of acquired lands for house sites. Though P.Ws.l and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing contra was elicited and their evidence stood unrebutted. R.W_ I who is examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer admitted that railway line from Karimnagar-N izamabad is running parallel to Karimnagar-Nizamabad. State Highway. Indisputably, the subject lands were acquired for formation of Karimnagar_Jagtial railway line. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the acquired lands might be situated nearer to Highway. Also, it is the case of the claimants that the acquired lands are in the limits of Ibrahimpanam Mandal Head Quarters. These facts buttress the claim of the claimants that the acquired lands have potentiality for residential purposes.

17. In the light of the above facts, this Court holds that the Land Acquisition Officer has grossly erred in not relying upon Exs.P- I and P-2-sale deeds for fixation of market value of the acquired lands. The Reference Court has appreciated the evidence 9 AKSJ&LNA-J LA,4S )\o 317 af20t5 on record from a proper perspective and has rightly found fault with the approach adopred by rhe Land Acquisition Officer in discarding the sale deeds under Exs.p-l andp-2.

18. It is settled principle of law that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, the highest of the exemplars, il'it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. as helcl by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Mehrawol Khewaji Trust v. Snre of punjabt.

19. Following the aforesaid principle, this Court holds that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.p-l-sale deed and taking it as an exemplar sale deed, it has fixed the market value of the acquired lands after deducting l/3'd of the value mentioned therein towards dr-r,elopmental charges, since the subject acquired lands are agriculttrral lands and the lands covered under Ex.p_l is house site.

20. Leamed Standing Counsel lor the appellant contended that when the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands, it erred in granting separate compensation for the '|(2012)5SCC 4:r2 l0 AKS,J&LNA,J UAS.No.J I7 ol20l5 trees and wells existing in the acquired lands and therefore, he sought to set aside the said reliefgranted by the Reference Court. 21. Here, it is apt to note that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejumat Bhojutani (d.ead) through LRs and others Vs. State of tl.p.z, in the instant case, as no capitalization method was followed by the Land Acquisition Officer while awarding compensation for the acquired lands, the claimants are entitled to separate compensation for the trees and wells existing in the acquired lands. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly confirmed the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the trees and wells existing in the acquired lands. Hence, the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant holds no water and as such, cannor be countenanced.

22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Relerence Court has not committed any illegality or inegulariry in fixing the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court.

23. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs. '(2003) lo scc s2s ? II AKS J & I-NA, J IAAS.No Jl7 aI20l j

24. As a sequel, LAASMP.No. 1063 of 2015 stands vacated' Miscellaneous interim order dated 07.10.2015 passed ln Petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed /TTRUE COPY// sd/-K sR+NlYt?s[lR E TION OFFICER To The Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial (with records' if any) One CC to Sri Anurag Rachapally' SC IOPUCI One CC to Sri A Krupadhar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] Two ccs to Gp FOR A'PEALS, High court for the state of

2. 3 4 -Terangana at l HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies Kam/PR @) t, HIGH COURT DATED: 24101t202s JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.317 of 2O1S ( .:d J ,-) $E STAI€ 1 11 UrR M ': I C -a DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL [ 3413 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No: 317 of 2015 Between: lntgL..ot lndia, Represented by the Generar Manager, south centrar Rairways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-sdo 071, A.p. ..Proposed/Appellant Beneficiaries AND 1 2 Ig1r]i_L_lt i, Wo. Jatapathi Reddy, Age: 48 years, Fl/o. Sathakkapaili h/o Ban0attngapur, lbrahimpatnam(M) Slqqlplrli Redy, S/o. Mailaiah, Age: 50 years, R/o. Sathakkapaili h/o. Bandattngapur, lbra h im patn am (M).

3. Perumandala Pedda Rajam, S/o. Gangaram, Age: g0 years, Rl/o. Sathakkapatti h/o. Bandalingapur, tbraiimpatnalm(U).

4. smt Bellala Raju, wo. pedda Mailaiah, Age: 60 years, R/o. sathakkapaili h/o Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnam(M).

5. Loka Ramulu, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 35 years, Age: 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnam(tvi).

6. Vilasager ([umari) Laxmi.Baj{n, S/o_ Gangaram, Age 35 years, Age 48 years, R/o. Sathakkapaili h/o. Bandatingapir, tOrdhifipatn6m(Uj. -- - 7 Smt Avula Gangu, Wo. B-hoomaiah, Age 65 years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalti h/o. Bandalingapur, lbratiimpatiram(i )."

8. Baikam Komurawa, WoDevaiah, Age 5g years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandatingapur, lbiahimfiatnam(fit). S fogntltg SrygPy, SJo. Rajanna, Age 48 years, Age 48 years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnamlnll;. - (Died per LR's RR-28 to 31)

10. P.Laxrni Narsaiah President Geetha parshaamika sanqam. sathakkaoa[v Age,50 years, Ag-e 48 years, RJo. Sathakkapaili hfo. Ba]rdjii"S"p;; -"- ' lbrahimpatnam(M).

11.Nathi Laxmi, Wo. Rajaram, Age 48.years, Age 48 years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnam(M).

12.Loka !.aju, Wo, Sanjeeva Reddy, Age years, Age 48 years, Rl/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnamlU;.'

13.Mudam Nadimalla Gangu, Wo. Lingam (Late), Age 62 years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandatingapur, lbrahirirpalnam(M).

14. Kukatla Bhoomaiah, S/o. Bhoomaiah Age 44 vears, R/o. Aoe 4g vears. R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnam(M). '15. Kukatla Gangarajam, S/o..Narsai-ah, Age: 48 years, R/o Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnam(M).

16. Kukatla Saty.anarayana, S/o. Chinnaiah, Age 35 years, Age 48 years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnamltrit;. - lT.Kukatla Laxman, S/o. Pochaiah, Age 55 years, Age 48 years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, hrahirirpatnam-1nll;. lS.Chilumala Ravindel, S/o. Rajam, Age 30 years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, l6rahim-patnam(itity.

19. Kukatla Venugopal, S/o. Laxman, Age 22 years, Age 48 years. R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimiatnam(M).

20.Mudam Bhoomaiah, S/o. Chinna Rajam, Age 45 years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbiahimpatnanilHll.

21. Mu.dam Raja Gangjrram, S/o. Chilukaiah, Age: 55 years, Age 48 years, R/o. Sathakkapalli hio. Bandalingapur, lbrahimp5tnam(M).

22. Bogodameedi Gan_gu, w/o. Gangaram, Age 40 years Age 4g years, Rl/o. Sathakkapafli h/o. Bandatingapur. lbrahimpatnahlfr4; -

23. Bogodamee-di Rajitha, Wo. Rajeshwar. Age 27 years, Age 4B years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatnarirlU;.

24.Mudam (Bogodameedi) Shivulu, S/o. Gangaram, Age 32 years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli hio. Bandalingapur, lbrihimpatnim(M). 25 Mudam Buchanna, S/o. Muthanna, Age 62 years, Age 4g years, RJo. Sathakkapalli h/o Bandalingapur, lbrahimpitnam(M).

26. Bogodamee_di Laxmi, Wo. Gangaram, Age 35 years, Age 4g years, R/o. Sathakkapalli h/o. Bandalingapur, lbrahimpatndm(M). - .Claimants/Respondents

27.The Land Acquisition Ol Railway, Karimnagar. Ticer' special oeputy cotlector' L A Unit' s'c'

28. Koppula Kistavva, S/o Late Sayebu, Age:49 years,

29. Koppula Pedda Sayanna, S/o Late Sayebu, Age:30 years, 30. Koppula Nadipi Saynna, Sio Late Sayebu, Age:26 years,

31. Koppula Kashiramulu, S/o Late Sayebu, Age:26 years, "17 Respondents No 28 to.31 are R/o sathekkapaili H/o Bandalingapur Viilage, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar Diskict. ...Respondent No's.28 to 3,t Reslondents No's.28 to 31 arebrought on record as LR's of deceased Respondent N9,9 u" per court order dated 24-01--202s, vide lA.No.c or zore i" iAA's.-r,r-5.irz 2015. "r Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A.Act against the order and Decree dated 02-06-2014 passed in L.A.o.p.No.97 of 201.ton the fite of the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial This appeal "oring on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri Anurag Rachapaily, sc for the Appefiant and sri A. Krupadhar Reddy, Advocate Respondents No.1 to 26 and Assistant Gp FoR APPEALS for the Respondent No.27 and None Appeared for Respondents No.2g to 31 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR To

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Jagtiat 2. Two CD Copies o ECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 /I DECREE LAAS.No.317 ot 2015 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL a ,\