The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.100 of 2015. JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, leamed crtunsel for the appellants-claimants and leamed Assistant Governnrent Pleader for Appeals appearing lor the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land.,\cquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity'the Act'), is filed by the claimarLts aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.02.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.33 of 2006 on the fite of the Ist Senior Civil Judge, Cit.y Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court")

3. In nut-shell, the facts of the casc are that the Govemment acquired a total extent of 4,127.47 square yards of property, which includes land admeasuring ll6.l7 square yards b:aring premises No.16 10-49 and land admeasuring 67.75 square: yards bearing premises No.16-10-49/C, situated at Nalgonda X-Roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad, belonging to the appellants/claimants, for the purpose of construction of fly over bridge at Nalgonda Cross roads; that Draft notification under Section a(t) of the Act u.as published in 2 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No l0a of 20 tj \ -) Hyderabad District Gazette on 29.09.2005; that Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was pubtished in Hyderabad Disrrict Gazetre on 30.09.2005 and after loltowing the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award, dated 13.03.2006, fixing the market value of the acquired land @Rs.2,229/- per square yard. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court, which was numbered as LAOP.No.33 of 2006.

5. Before the Reference Couft, on behalf of the appellants /claimants, P.Ws. I to 3 were examined and Exs.A-l to A-7 were marked.

6. The Reference Couft, on due enquiry, by order dated

20.04.2009 dismissed the said OP. Challenging the said order, the claimants carried the matter to the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing LAAS.No.4l2 of 2009 and the High Court vide judgment dated,2l.02.201 1 set aside the order dated20.04.2009 of the Reference Court and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after giving notices and opportunity to the parties concerned. J AKS.J&LNA,J L.IAS No.l00 oI2015 7 . After remand of the said Op, before the Rt:ference Court, on behalf of the claimants, Exs.p- I to p-4 were marked and p.W_ 1 was further examined by filing his additional afficavit in lieu of chief cxamination. On behalf of lhe respondent-Re lbrring Officer, R.W-1-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, was examined and Exs.R- t to R-3 were marked.

8. On due appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before it, the Relerence Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,229/- p(_.r square yard to fu.5,4001 per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. Secking further enhancement of the market value fixed by the Refercnce Court for the acquired property, rhe presenr appeal is filed by the claimants. 9. Leamed counsel for the appeilants/clai mants inter alia contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents filed by the appellants/claimants in proper. perspective; that the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired properties ought to have taken the highest of the exemplars, i.e., Ex.p-2-sale deed into consideration, br.Lt it lailed to do so; that the Reference Court has failed to take notr: of the fact that the acquired properties are situated in midst ol.commercial \ 4 AKSJ&LA:A,J L/1,a5 t\o t0o oJ20t 5 area and surrounded by prominent buildings and therefore, the same has higher potentiality and fetches higher market value; and therefore, the impugned order ol the Reference Court is liable to be Set aside, by enhancing the market value of the acquired land, as claimed by the appe llants/c [airnants I 0. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Relerence Court taking.into account the location of the acquired properties and on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land, which requires no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss this Appeal, as being devoid of any ments. ll. In order to assess and fix the market value of the subject acquired land, this Court has undertaken the exercise of examining each and every document, i.e., the exhibits, placed before the Reference Court. Exs.A- I to A-5 are Market Value Certificates However, in the tight of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, i-e., in Choda Dharampal Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisionol Officer, Nalgonda Districtt and .-reeg(l) ALD 261 (DB) 5 AKS,J&LNA J t./1AS No to0 ol 20tJ BSNL Vs. Nemichund Damotlardus2 the said documents cannot lorm basis for determination of market value ol' the acquired property. t2. Exs.A-6 and A-7 being nervs items published in .'the Hindu, English daily newspaper, the same cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of the acquired propeni,rs.

13. Ex.P-l, as deposed by p.W-3, is check slip pertaining to Ex.P-2-sale deed. P.W-3-senior Assisrant, Sub-Registrar,s Office, Azampura, in his evidence deposed that the market value of the undivided area of 8.36 square yards reflected in Ex.p-l as Rs.9,9001 per square yard, is, in fact, based on the Basic Value Register maintained by the Sub-Registrar's Office. Further,Ex.p_2_ sale deed, dated 14.02.2005, being a conibined sale cleed, there is no separate brbak-up showing the rnarket value of the builrup area admeasuring 30 I square feet and the market value of tl-re undivided area of 8.36 square yards. It is common knowledge that the sale consideration paid for a flat in an apartmenycommerc ial complex, would be in respect of value ofthe builfup area and proportionate undivided area of land. Therefore, in the absence of r ny specific break-up of the market values ol the buitt_up area anrl undivided e (p2z) 14 scc 60 ,] 6 SKS J&LNA,J LAAS No 100 oI201 5 r\ ( area of land being reflected in Ex.P-2, the Reference Court has rightly not taken the said sale deed as exemplar sale deed for fixing the market value of the acquired land

14. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-l-Award, shows that the Land Acquisition Olficer has referred to six sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period of three years preceding the date of 4(l) notification, wherein the market value of the land was ranging from Rs.2,100/- to Rs.5,4 t 5/- per square yard. The market value'of the land shown in the sale deed, dated 28.08.2005, at Sl.No.2 is Rs.5,415/- per square yard, is the highest among all the sale deeds. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the same on the ground that the land covered under the said sale deed is situated in a bye-lane at a distance of one kilometer from the land under acquisition and has fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,2291- per square yard based on sale deed, dated

28.05.2005, shown at Sl.No. I of the Award.

15. Perusal of the record discloses that the sale deed, dated

28.05.2005, shown at Sl.No.l olthe Award, which was reiied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, is a combincd sale deed and the Land Acquisition 1 AKS,J&L*'A J t./1AS No t00 oI20 t 5 Officer, aller deducting the structure value as assessed by the Sub- Registrar, worked out the value of the land @Pts.2.2291- per square yard. Here, it is pertinent to nore the definition o l' the expression 'market value' as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh Vs. Stote of Haryanai is extracted as hereuncler:- "The market value is the price that a willing pto chaser would pay to a willing seller for the proper4, havlng due regard to its existing condition with all its cxisting advantages and its potenlial possibilities when ted out in most advantageous manner excluding any advtntoze due to caruying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily ocquired. In con.s ider ing market value disinclinatton of the vendor to ptrt t tr.ith his land ond the urgent necessity of the purcfurser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding slar wo,tld lte lhe conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and o purchaser .in normal lruman conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent nrun in normal markel conditions bul not an anxious deal.ing ot arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale broughl about in quick succession or otherw,rse to inJlate the market value. The determination of n,arkt't value is the prediclion of an economic evenl t iz., a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. " '(2008) 2 SCC 568 I 8 AKS,J&LNA J l-4AS No 100 oI2015 C .\ \-- \l -

16. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deed which was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the marker value of the acquired land, obviously, does not reflect the true and correct inarket value of the land covered therein, as it does not fall within the definition ofexpression 'market value',

17. Here, it is relevant to note that the genuineness of the sale deed, dated 28.08.2005, shown at Sl.No.2 of the Award, is not disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In other words, it is not the case of the Land Acquisition Olficer that the said sale deed is not a bonafide transaction, as observed by the Reference Court. In such an event, though, admittedly, the land covered under the said sale deed is situated in a bye-lane at a distance of one kilometer from the land under acquisition, the same cannot be discarded only on the said .flimsy ground. As, admittedty, the land under acquisition abutting the main road, lr,hich definitely has higher potentiality and letches higher value than what was reflected in the sale deed shown at Sl.No.2 of the Award. Therefore, in the tight of settled principle of law that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted, as held by the lJon'ble Suprerre Court in Mehrawal I AKS.J&LN,4.J LAAS No t00 ol20t 5 Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjabr', the Reference (lourl has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land based on the said sale deed. t 8. Furlher, it is settled principle ol law that wlLen it is the case of the claimants that the compensation granted b.,, the Reference t Courl is unreasonable and meager, the burden i-. upon them to prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the t l one fixed by the Reference Court, as held by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in Special Depuly Collector and another elc., v. Kurro Sambasiva Rao and otherss. In the instant case. the claimants failed to discharge such burden cast upon them and no material, cvidence is placed on record in support of their crrntention/clairn and hence, they are not entitled for enhancement ol'rnarket value of the acquired land as was fixed by the Reference Court.

19. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly adopted the sale deed shown at Sl.No.2 of the Ex.R-l-Award and fixed the market value of the acquired land, based on the sarne. Hence, the ' (2012) s scc 432 'n IR 1997 sc 2625 IO ..r^s -/ & z,\r. J 1.1..1.\.\o 100 o/ 201 i "'*-1 \ n)r,... l - impugned order of the Reference Couft warrants no interference bv this Court and the Appeal is liable to be set aside

20. Accordingly, this Appeat is dismissed.

21. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, il. any, shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,t^,r, l--{1 q- SECTIONOFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishefty (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) To

1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. .l 1 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs' New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad 5. One CC to Sri Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at court for the state of Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies ADl(/gh \ ET'...*il| HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.100 of 2015 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS d i'rlE S T4 ,.)c .J o. ,t t) 2 6 JUN 2025 i') .i,:_. -. I;F 2 DRAFTS /.o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND n/vENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAND ACQUISIT ION FIRST APPEAL NO: 100 oF 2015 Between: -roi', "B;;f,aG A.V.V. SatvanarevanA, R/o. H.No. Hyderabad. 1 ' M/s Bashara Bhawan Frq! owners Association, Rep. by its president Dr. df,avan, -i\r;;k#i, 2. Sri M.A. Kadir Zamain S/o. Shaik Madar Sab, Occ. Advocate, R/o. H.No. 3 Smt^Anjum-Wan, Dto. M.A Kadir Zaman. Occ; Housewife R/o. H.No. 4. Dr. Faisal Zaman. S/o. M A_. Kadt.Zaman, Occ: Medical practitioner, R/o. 1 6-1 O4gl A, Malakpet, Hyderabad. H No 16-10-49/4, Matakpet, UyOiiiOao - ' -"" 1 6- 1 049 I A. Matakper, HyOeiaUiO AND ...Appellants The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition MCH, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Appeal Under section 54 of L.A. Act 1g94 against the order and decree dated 04-02-2013 made in L,A.o p.No.33 of 2006 on the iire of the court of the r senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing- the arguments of Sri Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate for the Appellants and of Gp for Appeals for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR secrloHlolrt"en To,

1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:31 t01t2O2S DECREE LAAS.No.100 of 2O1S DISMISSTNG THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS l l I I I I l I I i c) ) V b>.f