The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE ABHINAND KUM,{IT SITAVILI ANT) HON' BLE S lTI .I LISTI C E LAXMI NARAYA NA,,\ LI SHE'TTY l-AAS.No.l83 of 2013 JUDGMENT: @er fton'ble SriJustice Laxmi Narayana Alishetr_t,) Heard Sri Mohd. Moin Quadri, learned counsel fbr the appellants/claimants, and leamed Govemment pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short'the Act') is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.06.2012 passed in t-AOp.No.5l9 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinalter referred to as ,,the Reference Court').

3. In brief, the lacts of the case are that total land adrneasuring Acs.20.34 guntas covered by various survey numbers, which includes the lands admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.l.00 guntas in Sy.No.306 of Mamidipalty Village, Saroomagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, belonging to claimant Nos.l and 2, respectively, r,r,as acquired by the Government for. development of , 2 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS tio.lE3 of 2013 P7 Road at Mamidipally Village; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.p. Gazette on

21.04.2007; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land' Acquisition Officer passed Award, vide proceedings No.C/17107, dated 05.10.2007, fixing the market value of the acquired tands @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre.

4. The clairnants received the cornpensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 ol the Act and the same was referred to the competent civil Court and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.5 I 9 of 2008 on thc flle of the Reference Cour-t.

5. Before the Refcrencc Court, on behall of the appellants/claimants, claimant No.l got himsell examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent-Refeming Officer, R.W- I was exarnined. but no document was marked.

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court dismissed the LAOP confirming the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the clairnants 1T I I I l ,1IiS. .J & LNA, J L:4AS.No.l83 of 201 3

7. Leamed counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the appellants in proper perspective; that the Reference Coun erred in discarding Ex.P-l on flimsy grounds; and that the Reference Court has failed to consider the cross-examination of R.W- I , wherein she has categorically admitted that she is not aware whether Mamidipally Village area is a residential locality and whether nearby lands are convefted into house plots. l,eamed counsel lurther contended that the acquired land is surrounded by residential houses. schools, colleges and very near to Rajiv Gandhi Intemational Airport, etc., and therefore, the Reference Court ought to have fixed the market value of the acquired land on yardage basis instead ol acreage basis. He further contendecl that the Reference Courl erred in not considering Ex.P-l-sale deed, whereunder the consideration is reflected @ Rs.2.7 crores per acre for the land in Jalpally Village, which is adjacent to Mamidipally Village, where the subject acquired land is situated and hence, the leamed counsel prayed to allow this Appeal by enhancing and filrin&the market value of the acquired land on yardage basis. 4 AKS,J&LNA,J I)1A5.No.183 of 2013

8. Learned Government pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Ofhcer contended that except Ex.A- 1-sale deed, which is in respect of land in Jaipally Village, the claimants have not adduced anl,evidence in support of their claim and as such, the Reference Court rightly held that the market value fixed for the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Officer is true and correct and accordingly, dismissed the LAOp. He, therefore, submitted that no grounds are made out in the Appeal warranting interlerence by the impugned order and as such, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. It is the case of the claimants that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is unreasonable and meager and hence, the burden is upon them to prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the one fixed by the Reference Court. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector antl another etc., v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and otherst , wherein it is hetd as hereunder:- 'EIR{997 sc2625 ,/ .\ ,1KS,J&I-NA,J t)1A.,,Ya.Ii of20I3 "....Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition OfJicer, which i.v onlt' an offer. If the Award is acceptel u'irhout protest, it binds the parties. lt is the bounden duty of the Court to evaltate the evidence on the basis of the human conduct. etten if no rebuttal evidence is produced b.y the Land Accluisition Officer to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in head role of decisions ..... The burden of proof that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition OlJicer/Collector is not adequole is always on the claimants. The burden is to. adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired Lattds are capable of fetching higher market value tlwn the omount owarded by the Lond Acqttisition Off cer/('ollector or that the Lancl Acquisition Oficer/Collector proceeded on wrong premises or applied a u,rong principle of law ....."

10. In the case on hand, the claimants except the oral testirnony of one of tlre' chimants as P.W-l and marking Ex.A-I, have not adduced any other evidence. P.W- I in his evidence reiterated the contents of the claim petition. He deposed that the agricultural I 6 AKS,J & LI|A, J LAAS.No.lSl oI20l3 lands were acquired by the Government in the year 2007 and, compensation was paid on acreage basis. t 1. Further, in support of their claim for enhancement of market value of the acquired land, the only document aciduced by the claimants is Ex.A-l-sale deed, dated 18.01.2007, whereunder the consideration is mentioned as Rs.2.7 crores per acre. Admittedly, the land covered under Ex.A-l-sale deed is situated in Jalpally Village, whereas the acquired land is in Mamidipalty Village. It is the case of the claimants that Jalyaplly Village is adjacent to Mamidpally Village. However, to ascertain the actual distance between the said Villages, the claimants have not filed Village map or Road map.

12. That apart, a perusal of Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer shows that as many as 794 sale deeds for the relevant period of three years i.e., from 2004 to 2007, prior to the date of4(l) notification, were referred to and analyzed by the Land Acquisition Officer for determination of the market value of the acquired land. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer after thoroughly examining all the sale deeds and after considering the xiqrilarities between the lands covered by the said sale deeds and I ,/ 7 IKS,J&LNA.J LA45 No.l83 of 2013 1 the present acquired land, adopted the sale deeds mentioned at Sl.No.s773 to775.786,187,790 ro 792, which rellects the highest market value @ t{s.40,00,000/- per acre and accordingly, fixed the market value ,lf the acquired land @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre.

13. The claimants sought to rely upon Ex.A-1-sale deeds which peftain to land in Jalpally Village, claiming that the said Village is adjacent to Mamidipally Village, where the subject acquired land is situated. [-lov,,evcr. the record reveals that as manv as 794 sale deeds rverc lelirred to by the Larrd Acquisition Offic:er in the Arvard. In sur:h an event, in the light of settled principle of law that when sale deeds pertaining to the Village where the lands are acquired are very rnuch available, the sale deeds pertaining to other or adjacent or neighbouring Villages cannot be considered for fixing thc marke t value of the acquired land, Ex.A- I -sale deed merits no consiclcration and accordingly, thc same is discarded.

14. 'lhe clairnants except contending that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was confirrned b1 the Reference Court, is exorbitantly low, were unable to discharge the burden cast on them to prove that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is not adequate. All the same, the I I 8 AKS, J & LN,4,J LAAS.No.183 of 20 t3 burden is on the claimants is to adduce relevant material and evidence to establish thar the acquired rands are capable of fetching higher market value than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer or thar the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on wrong premises or applied a wrong principle of [aw, which was confirmed by the Reference Court. 15. On the face of record, it is evident that the claimants were unsuccessful in discharging such burden cast on them and therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. 17. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. /iTRUE COPY' SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I ) I To, '1. The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Redy at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

2. One CC to SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. Two CD Copies ADK,/DL HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMEN +DECREE LAAS.No.183 of 2013 2 DRAFTS 9\ ATE l$ft \1 N\ I :\'g DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS ) o o )- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 183 OF 2013 Between: 1 . F. V,jqV Kumar, S/o R. Mohan Rao, Occ : Business, Rl/o. H.No.2_D, Usha Mansion, Officers Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. 2- B_.R. Alekh, S/o B.Vi.iaya kumar Occ : Business, Ri/o. H.No.2-D, Usha Mansion, Officers Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Claimants AND Special Deputy Collector, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. ...RespondenUReferring Officer Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 against the Judgment and decree dated 28.06.20'12 made in L.A.O.P.No.519 of 2008 on the file of the court of the ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Redy at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 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 MOHD MOIN AHMED eUADRl, Advocate for the Appellants and of GP FOR APPEALS, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the LAAS be and hereby is dismissed; 2. fhal there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Redy District

2. Two CD Copies li-e. f.f"grr, Ranga Reddy "t HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE LAAS.No.183 of 2013 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS () )