The Special Gr v. Sri E.Srinivas Prasad

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order to modlfy the orders dated 19-12-2019 passed in LAAS No. 109 of 2019 in LAOP No. 366 of 2014 by extending the time for compliance of orders by modifying the same to enable the deposit of 50 percentage enhanced I compensation fll 1011112020 as the amount was deposited vide SR No.-3417 of , 2020 and this Court lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: Sri E.Srinivas Prasad, S/o.Late E.Venkat Ramaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ Business, Narayanguda, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/RESF'ONDENT/CLAIMANT AND The Special Grade Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition, HlVltt), GHIVIC, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,lircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dt 9-12-2019 passed in lA 312019 in LAAS t\o..109/20'l 9 Counsel for the Appellant: GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V. Venkata Mayur The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.1O9 of 2O19 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'b\e Smt. Jusfice nrumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the ActJ is preferred by the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, HMR GHMC, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.06.2018 passed in L.A.O.P.No.366 of 2014 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

3. The case of the claimants before the reference Court is that the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has invoked the urgency clause and got issued draft notification under Section a(1) of the Act on O1.05.2012 for tJ:e purpose of road widening from Narayanaguda to Veer Savarkar Statue to Kachiguda via YMCA. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 01.07.2013 awarding a compensation of Rs.4O,OO0/- per square yard and structure value at Rs.SOO/- per 2 AKs,J & ETDJ LAAS No.109 2019 square feet alone with statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

4. The reference Court has framed the folkrwing points for consideration "7 Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced r:ompensation? If so, at what rate? 2 Whether the compensation awarded by the LAO just, reasonable and adequate?"

5. Before the reference Court, the claimant gct examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A4O. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to E}8 were marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the refe:.ence Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.65,0OO/- per square yard, in addition to the statutory benefits. Aggrieved b1' the said order and decree, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned Govr:rnment Pleader for the appellant and Sri V.Venkata Ma1,ur, learned counsel for the respondents. 3 AKs,J & ETD,I LAAS No.109 2019

8. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has grossly erred in enhancing the compensalion and that the award of Land Acquisition Ofhcer is fair and reasonable and was not supposed to be enhanced, he therefore prayed to set aside the orders passed by the reference Court by allowing this appeal.

9. Learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the order of the reference Court is based on sound reasoning and therefore, prayed to confirm the same. i0. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1 2 Whether the ciaimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relieP

11. PTOINT NO.1: a) PW i is the claimant and his evidence reveals that the acquired property is situated in prime locality and is surrounded by business establishments and that tlte entire area is a commercial area and has a scope for further development and 4 A(s,J & ETO,J LAAS No.109 2019 that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consicier the structure value properlv. Initially, the claimants h,e're sought for enhancing the value to Rs. 1,00,O0O I - per sq:are yard but subsequentlv they got their claim statement amt:nded seeking to hx the land value at Rs.2,O0,0O0/- per square 1ard. He further deposed that a flat admeasuring 12,000 Sft rvith premises bearing Nos.3-4-54Ol r, 3-4-54012, 3-4-540lA, 3-4-540lB, 3-4- 548,3-4-548 12,3-4-54813,549 and 549 lt at YMCA Narayanaguda, was sold lor Rs.25,00,000/- vide document bearing No.875 ol 2007. He relied upon Exs.Al to A26 and A34 to A38 reflecting the sale transactions wherein r.he cost of the land varied from Rs.18,00,OOO/- to Rs.32,00,OO0,/- and that the land that is solcl under these exhibits fall interior to the main road and that the acquired land is abutting the rrLa.in road. b) PW2 is the government registered valuer, v.ho has deposed that he inspected the commercial buildings a nd residential buildings at Narayanguda and Kachiguda for evaluating the construction cost and has given his report under E.x.A27. c) A perusal <>f Ex.A27 reveals that it is a vahreLtion certifrcate dated 29.O4.2017 and that he has assessed the prevailing value of the structures in 20O6 to 2012 of several buildings which were 5 AKS,J & ETD,J IAAS No-109 2019 constructed in the years 2006 to 2012 al:d has estimated the value of those structures. As per Ex.A27 the purchase cost as per the registered document is Rs.94,46,600/- in the year 2012 for a flat piant at Narayanguda admeasuring 1865 sft, the building cost is estimated at Rs. 13,80, 100/- while the remaining is assessed as land cost. In the same fashion, he assessed the buildings that were constructed in the year 2011 also. A perusal of sale deeds under Ex.A12, dated 08.O2.2012 in the ground floor of Preetham apartment admeasuring 495 sft was sold for Rs.18,O0,000/-. Under Ex.A39 dated 09.05.2012 wherein Rs.94,46,60O/- is the sale consideration for the propert5r of

1147.5 Sq.yards with semi finished flat No.201 in the {irst floor. d) The claimants have relied upon several other exhibits pertaining to the years 2OO8, 2OO9, 2OlO. However, 2Ol2 documents if perused reveal that they had a high market value, which is far more higher than that is awarded by the Land Acquisition Offrcer. e) RWl in his cross examination has admitted that the acquired property forms part of the ward no.3 and block No.S and that the compensation for the acquired property is fixed basing on documents of ward no.3 and block No.4 but no such 6 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109 2019 document is filed in this regard. He stated that the acquired property falls in residential area. The claimant .lsserts that his house was acquired for road widening and that it had ground + two floors and that it was let out for rent. It is t:licited through PWl that his property is situated on the main r,):rd in the prime locality and opposite to YMCA and the same is ad.rritted by RW1. It is further elicited that it had several portions ir-r ground + two floors u'hich u,ere let out for rents. Thus, his property being opposite to YMCA fetches higher value anrl it is in the commercial arezr, therefore, it is held that tlrt: land that is acquired has higher market value than what is assr:ssed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the amount as enhanced by the reference Court appears to be well justified. point No. I is answered at:cordingly.

12. POINT NO.2: In vielg of the reasoned finding arrived at F,oint No. 1 , this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference.

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed uph,)lding the order and decree dated 11.06.2018 passed in L.A.O.p.lrlo .366 of 2Ol4 7 AKs,J & ETDJ LAAS No.109 2019 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER '1 . The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.(with records, if any)

2. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri V. Venkata lVlayur, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/DL HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.109 of 2019 ,3E S;AT€ , s 10 [?f, ?s5 , +1 ,,'l a .i ,r, s,:-rt \-ir :-:-.::- : ,- nt:;.1' l a).) \.,.r L,'\ DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS I \i. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAAS NO: 109 OF 2019 Between: The Special Gr.Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, HIt/R GHMC, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND Sri E.Srinivas Prasad, S/o.Late E.Venkat Narayanaguda, Hyderabad Ramaiah, H. No.3-5-'1091/2/2, ...RESPONDENT Appeal filed under section 54 of L.A.Act against the order and decree Dated '1 1.06.2018 in L.A.O.P.No.366 of 20'14 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of GP for Appeals for the appellant and Sri V. Venkata Mayur Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the LAAS No. 109 of 2019 be and hereby is dismissed; upholding the order and decree dated 11 06.2018 passed in L.A.O.P No. 366 of 20'14 the learned lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE GOPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. fwo CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312025 \ DECREE LAAS.No.109 of 2019 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS