The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3 Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, HMR,GHMC, Hyderabad Suraj Prakash Malhotra, S/o. late Om Prakash, F|/o. H. No.69, Old Mudfort, Secunderabad. S. Bhadraiah, S/o. late Sambaiah, Rl/o. H. No. 8-2-241 ,8-2-242, Moti Mahal, St. Mary's road, Secunderabad. (Respondent No.3 is not necessary party) ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the execution of the judgment and decree of the Court of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad in LAOP No. 224 of 201 5 dt. 26.12.2022, in so far as half of the compensation apportioned in favour of the 2nd respondent herein along with the proportionate amount of solatium and market value is concerned, pending disposal of the above appeal. I lA NO: 2 OF 202:t BETWEEN: Suraj Prakash A.4alhotra, S/o. late Om Prakash, Fl/o. H. No.69, Old Mudfort, Secunderabad. ... Petitione r/Res ponde nt No.2 AND

1. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, HMR,GHMC, Hyderabad ...1't RespondenUlst Respondent 2- S. Anand Kumar, S/o. Shiva Narayana, Aged 63 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of Plot No. 52, Chandulal Bowli, Sikh Village, Secunderabad

3. S. Bhadraiah, S/o. late Sambaiah, Rl/o. H. No. 8-2-241 , B-2-Z42,Moti Mahal, St. Mary's road, Secunderabad ...2nd RespondenUAppellant ...3'd RespondenURespondent No.3

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt.2411112023 passed in L.A.A.S 62 of 2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment dated 3110112025 passed in LAAS 6212023 till lhe expiration of the time allowed for appealing. Counsel for the Appe llant : Sri Ch Siddhartha Sarma Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Aleti Srinivas The Court delivered the following : Judgment HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.62 of 2023 .IT]DGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Larmi Nurayana Alishetty) Heard Sri Ch.Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel lor the appellant and Sri Aleti Srinivas, leamed counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire material available on record.

2. This Appeat, under Section 74 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity'the Act'), is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 2.6.12.2022 passed in L.A.O.P.No.224 of 2015 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Ref-erence Court"), only to the extent ol disallowing his claim for compensation in respect of one Ramesh Kumari's 1/3'd share in the subject property of Mukundlal's branch.

3. ln nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the property known as 'Moti Mahal Hotel' bearing premises Nos.8-2-241 and 8-2-242, admeasuring

102.60 square yards for the purpose of road widening from YMCA to Secunderabad Station (Metrorail project); that Draft notification under Section 4(l) of the Act and the Draft declaration under 2 AK,9,J&LN/1.J LAAS.No 62 ol 2023 Section 6 of the Act were published in Hyderabad District Gazette; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, dated 26.(t9.2014; that later, as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.3 1523 ol 2014, the Land Acquisition Officer re_ determined the compensation for the acquired property and enhanced the same to Rs. 1,50,10,254/-, vide Award proceedings dated 2l .0 t.20 15, towards both the value of the acquired land and the structure existing on it, however, as there arose a title dispute, i.e., dispute in respect of payment of compensation to the rightful owners, he relerred the matter under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act to the competent Civil Court, which was numbered as LAOP.No.224 of 2015.

4. Before rhe Rel'erence Court, on behalf of Claimant No.l, he himself got examined as P.W-l and Exs.A-l to A-10 and Exs.A_54 to A-59 were marked. On behalf of Claimant No.2, he got himself examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A-l I to A-34 were marked and on behalf of Claimant No.3, he got himself examined as p.W-3 and Exs.A-35 to A-53 and Exs.R-l to R-9 were marked. On the other hand, on behall ol the Land Acquisition Officer, the Special J AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS.No.62 oJ2023 Deputy Collector/LAo Metro Rail Project was examined as C.W-l and Exs.C-1 to C-3 were marked.

5. The Relerence Court, on due appreciation of the entire evidence. both oral and documenrary, placed before it, allowed the LAOP and directed that the total compensation of Rs. 1,5 1,10,2541- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer be apportioned among Claimant Nos. I and 2,, i.e.., Claimant No.l is entitled to a sum of Rs.96, I 2,5 70l-, whereas Claimant No.2 is entitled to a sum of Rs.54,67,684/- and further, Claimant Nos. I and 2 are entitled to accrued interest, if any, over the deposited amount proportionate to their respective shares. The Reference Court further held that Claimant No.3 is not entitled to any apportionment in the cornpensation amount deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant No.l inter alia contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents filed by the appellant/Claimant No.l in proper perspective, especially Ex.A-57-sale deed executed by one Ramesh Kumari in favour of Claimant No. I ; that the Reference Court failed to take note ol the fact that the SLP filed by Claimant No.2 and others against the order passed in CCCA.No.326 of 2007 dismissing the Appeal, thereby setting aside the preliminary decree l AKS,J&L]\iA.J LAAS.No.62 oJ2023 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2002, was withdrawn and therefore, the doctrine ol- lis pendense is not applicable to the present case; that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the observations made by this Court in CCCA.No.326 of 2007 that the suit- O.S.No.6 <tf 2002 is bad lor non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., Ramesh Krrmari to the suit; that the Reference Court ought to have seen that rvhen Claimant No. I acquired rights over the share of Ramesh Krrmari in the sub.iect property by virtue ol'a registered sale deed, though it was executed pending litigation, such alienation rvould be subject to the outcome of the litigation and as such, the Reference Court erred in disallowing the claim of Claimant No. I on the ground that sale deed was executed by Ramesh Kumari in favour of Claimant No.l pending adjudication and therefore, the same cannot be considered. By contending thus, Ieamed counsel prayed to allow the Appeal.

7. Per contra, leamed counsel for Claimant No.2 inter alia contended that Ramesh Kumari has no right or claim towards her share in the subject property as she relinquished her rights by way of filing affidavit before the lncome Tax Department; that Ramesh Kumari did not take any course of action to challenge the Will of Shantha Kurnari or get herself impleaded in the suit filed fbr -l AKS.J&LNA.J I,AAS No 62 af2023 partition-O.S.No.6 of 2002 or LAOp.No.224 of 2015; and that therefore, learned counser contended that the Reference court has rightly considered the said aspect and passed the impugned order, which requires no interlerence by this Court. Considerati 0n:-

8. Claimant No. I filed the present Appeal challenging the order of the Reference Courr in not granting compensation to him to the extent of Ramesh Kumari's l/3.d share in the subject property of Mukundlal's branch. Therefore, this court is not incrined to derve into other aspects/facts of the case, which are not subject matter of the present appeal.

9. Indisputably, Mukundlal's Branch and Shiv Narayan,s branch are entitled to half share each in the subject property. claimant No. I in his craim Sratement filed before the Reference Court has categorically admined the said aspect and therefore, the legal heirs of Mukundtal have share in the subject property. 10. Adrninedly, Ramesh Kumari is daughter of Mukundlal and Shantha Kumari being wife, and Om prakash and Ramesh Kumari being children of Mukundlal are all his legal heirs. I l. However, here, it is pertinent to note that Claimant No.2 and his brother, who are sons of Om prakash, i.e., grand children of 6 AKS J&LNA-J LAAS No.62 of2023 u MukundlaL, and their mother have filed suit in O.S.No.6 of 2002 on i the file ol Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, against the legal heirs of Shiv Narayana, seeking partition ol the plaint schedule properties, based on the registered Wil[ executed by the wife of Mukundlal-Shantha Kumari bequeathing her half share in the propefties of Mukundlal in favour o1'the plaintiffs. r\ preliminary decree was passed in the said suit. Challenging the sarne, the legal heirs of Shiv Narayana filed CCCA.No.326 of 2007 before the erstwhilc Fligh Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. This Court, on re-appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the appeal by judgment, dated

08.03.2018 and set aside the judgment of the trial Court, by observing that Shantha Kumari, W/o Mukundlal, cannot execute a Will in favour of the plaintiffs claiming to be owner of half of the properties of Mukundlal, in exclusion of rights ol other legal heirs of Mukundlal, and further held that though plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, who are Claimant No.2 and his brother, are entilled to seek partition, in view of fact that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, no relielcan be granted.

12. Fufther, this Court cannot lost sight of the fact that in SLP (C).No 24449 of 2018 fited by the plaintifls against the said w 7 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No.62 ol2023 judgment, learned counsel lor the plaintiffs represented that he has instructions to withdraw the suit itselland accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of recording that the suit-O.S.No.6 of 2002 is disposed of as withdrawn by the plaintiffs with liberty to approach the Reference Court in the LAOP. i3. Claimant No. I in the LAOP before the Reference Court claimed compensation in respect of share of Ramesh Kumari, i.e., l/3'd out of the share of Mukundlal's branch in the subject property on the ground that the said Ramesh Kumari executed registered sale deed, dated 19.02.2015, vide document bearing No.435 of 2015, in his favour, which was rnarked as Ex.A-57

14. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and having regard to the submissions made by lcarned counsel appearing for both the parties, now, the issues that arise tbr consideration are: (i) ll/hether the Ramesh Kumari hus gol l/3'd share out of half shtre of suhject propert.y helonging to Mukundlol's branch. (ii) Ll/helher tlte sole deed execuled by Ramesh Kumari in favour of Claimont No.l is vulid in the eye of law. (iii) If so, to what reliefl I I I i 8 ,IKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.62 of2023 Issue No.I :-

15. For adjudicating this issue, it is relevant to note that originally. O.S.No.6 of 2002 was filed by Mukundtal,s branch against Shiv Narayana's branch seeking panition of the suit schedule properties and a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit. Challenging the said preliminary decree, Shiv Narayana's branch filed CCCA.No.326 of 2007,as stared supra. This Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, allowed the Appeal, making certain observations which are extracted hereunder for better appreciation:- "It i.s clear now that Shantha Kumari and Mukundlal hatl m,o children, viz., Omprakash and Rantesh Kumari. Therefore, on the death of Mukuntttal, Omprakash, Ramesh Kumar i and Shantha Kuntari had a share in the suit schedule property. "

16. Further, in the penultimate para of the .iudgment in CCCA.No.-126 of 2007, it is observed as hereunder:- "Even though the issues 4 and 5 are decided in favour of the plainti/fs holding that they are entitled to seek a partition, in view of the fact that the suit is badfor non_ joinder of parties, no relief can be granted to the plaintilfs. "

17. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that Ramesh Kumari has got I /3'd share in the properties of Mukundlal,s branch. 9 AKS, J & LNA. J LAAS.Na.62 oI202J Further, it is pertinent ro nore rhat SLp fited challenging the judgment dated passed in CCCA.No.326 of 2007 was withdrawn by the Mukundlal's branch with liberty to agitate their rights in the pending LAOP. Thus, the observarions made by this Court in CCCA.No.326 of 2007 have become final and binding on the parties.

18. From the aforesaid judgment of this Court in CCCA.No.326, which are final and binding on the parties, the rights of the parties vis-d-vis Ramesh Kumari are crystallized in respect of her 1/3'd share in the properties of Mukundlal's branch.

19. Accordingly, issue No. I is answered. Issue No.2:-

20. Before the Reference Courr, Claimant No.2 filed counter, wherein he has taken a plea that Ramesh Kumari has filed an affidavit before the Income 1-ax Deparlment relinquishing her rights in respect of her share in the properties of Mukundlal.

21. [t is settled principle of law that rights in immovable properties will get extinguished or transl'erred only tfuough a registered document. Further, under Section l7 of the Registration Act, any document executed in respect ol property, the value of t0 AKS.J&LNA.J LAAS.No.62 o12023 which is more than Rs. 100/- has to be registered. 1'herefore, mere filing of affidavit by Ramesh Kumari before the lncome Tax Department would not extinguish her rights in respect of her share in the subject property.

22. Further, Claimant No.2 in suppoft of his aforesaid plea, has got marked Exs.A-32 to 34. It is apposite to note that the said documents are marked before the Reference Court subject to objection. However, as no evidence was adduced by Claimant No.2 for proving the said documents, the Reference Court has rightly held that the said documents cannot be relied upon by Claimant No.2.

23. In the light of the above observation of the Relerence Court and also in view of the aforesaid settled principle of law and Section l7 of the Registration Act, Exs.A-32 to A_33 are per se not valid under law and therefore, the said contention is untenable.

24. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the Reference Court has observed that sale deed_ExA_57 was executed by Ramesh Kumari pending adjudication of the case and therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration. 11 AKS,J&LNII,J LAAS.N1.62 of 2023

25. Though the said Ramesh Kumari has executed Ex.A-57, dated 19.02.205, in favour of Claimant No. I alienating her share in Mukundlal's share in the subject propefiy during the pendency of L.dOP before the Reference Court, i.e., pendente /ire, the same would be subject to result of the LAOP. In the impugned order, when the Reference Court held that Exs.A-32 to A-34, by virtue of which Claimant No.2 sought to plead that the said Ramesh Kumari has relinquished her share in the properties of Mukundlal, are not proved, it necessarily means that rights of Ramesh Kumari are not relinquished in respect of her share in Mukundlal's properties and her share in Mukundlal's properties is subsisting. Therefore, she was entitled to execute sale deed in respect of her share in the subject property in favour of Claimant No. I .

26. It is appropriate to refer to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N.Aswathnarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnatakat , wherein it is held as under:- "Infact, purchase of land after publication ofa Section 4 notification in relation to such land, is void against the State and at the most, the purchttser may be a person interested in compensation, since he steps into lhe shoes of the ersnuhile owner and may therefore, merely claim compensation. " ' 1zota1 ts scc :oa L I I l I t2 AKS,J&LtiA.J L,1/15 No 62 of 202J

27. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesrrid.iudgment is squarely applicable to the present case as the lacts are almost identical.

28. ln the case on hand, Claimant No.l is said to have purchased a portion of acquired property from one Ramesh Kumari after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, he steps into the shoes of the said Ramesh Kumari and is entitled to compensation to lhe extent of her share in the subject property 29 . In the light of the same, this Court holds that the Reference Courl grossly erred in not taking into consideration Ex.A-57-sale deed e;recuted by her in favour ol Claimant No.l solely on the ground olTrendente lite and not granting compensation in respect of the share of Ramesh Kumari in the subject property. Issuc No.-1.-

30. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Reference Court is modified, granting compensation ol Rs. 18,32,561/-, which represents the share ol Ramesh Kumari in l3 AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS.No 62 of 2023 the subject property and being l/3'd of total compensation of Rs.54,97,6841- granted to Claimant No.2. 3 l. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REG TRAR SECTION FICER The XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad One CC to Sri Ch Siddhartha Sarma' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Aleti Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies I To, 1 a J 4 ADK 1 HIGH COURT AKS,J & LNA,J DATED:31 10112025 q c o ( * IHE SI4 14: f ( ,+ 10 itAH 2m r) r:.Stta16urr- JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS LAAS.No.62 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS b i-_,.--___ _ I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 62 OF 2023 Between: S. Anand Kumar, S/o. Shiva Narayana, Aged 63 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of Plot No. 52, Chandulal Bowli, Sikh Village, Secunderabad. . -Appellant AND

1. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, HMR,GHIVC, Hyderabad. 2. Suraj Prakash Malhotra, S/o. late Om Prakash, F|/o. H. No.69, Old Mudfort, Secunderabad.

3. S. Bhadraiah, S/o. late Sambaiah, R/o. H. No. 8-2-241 ,8-2-242, Moti Mahal, St. Mary's road, Secunderabad. (Respondent No.3 is not necessary party) ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 74 of L.A. Act against the Order and decree dated 26.12.2022 made in L.A.O.P.No.224 of 2O15 on the file of the court of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. 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 Sri Ch Siddhartha Sarma, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Aleti Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is allowed ; -7

2. That the impugned order of the Reference Court is modified, granting compensation of Rs. 19,32,561/_, which represents the share of Ramesh Kumari in the subject property and being 1t3rd of totar compensation of Rs.54,97,684lgranted to Claimant No.2;

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. To, /iTRUE COPY// sD/- K.SRtNtVesA nao JOINT REG/STRAR \/ sEcTtoN drHcrn

1. The XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT AKS,J & LNA,J DATED:31 10112025 DECREE LAAS.No.62 of 2023 ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS )