The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri G M Mohiuddin representing Ms. Ayesha Tasneem Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : AGP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment ,T) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI ANI) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.l5 4 of2014 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Si G.M.Mohiuddin, leamed counsel, representing Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, leamed counsel for the appellants-claimants and leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This Appeat, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity 'the Act'), is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 19.03.2014 passed in respect of L.A.O.P.No .766 ol 2013 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter relerred to as "the Reflerence Court"). l. In nut-shell. the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Assistant City Plarmer, Circle-I, MCH, land admeasuring 57.59 square yards in premises bearing No'16-10-49, Malakpet, I{yderabad, belonging to the appellants/claimants, was acquired lor the purpose of road widening from Nalgonda Cross roads at Malakpet and Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad; that Dralt notification under Section a( l) of the Act was published in 2 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS No l5a oI20l4 Hyderabad District Gazette on 14.08.2007; that Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Hyderabad District Gazette on 16.08.2007; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.A/954/2006, dated

24.0 I .2008. fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,850/- 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.766 of 2013. 5 Thc said LAOP was clubbed with LAOP.No.765 of 2013 and joint trial was conducted in both the cases. Belore the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants /claimants, P.Ws. I to 3 were examined and Exs.A-l to A-19 were marked. On behalf o[ the respondent-Referring Offi cer, R.W- I -Special Deputy Co Ilector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, was examined and Exs.R-l to R-4 were marked

6. On due appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before it, the Reference Court dismissed the LAOP filc'd by the claimants, thereby, confinning the Award 3 AKS,J&LNA,J U,(S.N1.151of 2014 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer' Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

7. Leamed counsel for the appellants/clai mants inter alia contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents, particularly Exs.A-6 to A-12 filed by the appellants/claimants in proper perspective; that tlre Reference Court brushed aside the contentions of the claimants based on Exs.A-6 to A-12 on flimsy ground, which is unsustainable in law;' that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that the acquired property is a commercial property, situated on the' National Highway and surrounded by educational institutions, trading establishments, hospitals, shopping malls, etc., and as such, the acquired land has higher potentiality and fetches higher market value; and therefbrc, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside, by enhancing the market value of the acquired land, as claimed by the appellants/claimants.

8. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Relerencc Court taking into account the location of the acquired properties and on due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence ptaced betore it, has rightly confirmed the 4 ,tKs.J&LN,4.t L1,1S.No.tsa ol2014 market value of the acquired land as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which requires no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss this Appeal, as being devoid of any merits. 9. 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_1, A_2, A_6, A_7, A-17 and A_19 are Market Value Certificates. However, in the light of the ratio laid down b_v the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments, i.e., in Chodo Dharampal Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Distric/ and BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodardas2, the said documcnts cannot form basis for determination of market value of the acquired land. 10. Exs.A_3 to A_5 are all documents produced by the claimants to shotv their orvnership over the subject acquired land and as such, the same cannot be taken into account for determining the market value ol'the lrcqu ired land. I I . Exs..A_g to A_ I 5 are certified copies of the sale deeds pertaining ro rhe transactions during the years 2004, 2005,2006 and 2007, rvhich are prior to the date of 4(l) notification. However. r998( r) Ar_D t6t ( r)t) ) (2022) 14 SCC 60 ./,/ 5 ,{KS.J&LNA,J UAS No.l54 oJ20l4 perusal of the said sale deeds discloses that the said sale deeds being combined sale deeds, there is no separate break-up showing the market values of the built-up area and the undivided area of land. It is common knowledge that the sale consideration paid for a flat in an apartment/commercial complex, would be in respect of value of built-up area and proportionate undivided area of land. Therefore, there is no specific break-up of the market values of the built-up area and the undivided area being reflected ln the said documents, i.e., Exs.A-8 to A-15.

12. In order to rely upon the said documents, it is necessary to examine whether the market value reflected in Exs.A-8 to A-15 satisfies the definition of 'market value' as defrned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh Vs. Srau of Haryand' which is extracted as hereunder:- "The market value is lhe price that a willing purchaser would pry to a willing seller for the propert,'* having due regard to its existing condilion with all ils eristing advantages and its potential possibilities uhen led out in most advantageous manner excluding on!' advantoge due to carrying out of the scheme .f<tr * hich the property is compulsorily acquired ln consklering ntarket value disinclination of the verulor to Part witll his land and the urgent necessity of llrc purchaser to '(2oot) 2 scc 568 6 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS No l5,t ol2014 buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conducl would be willing to buy as a prudent man in norntal morket conditions but not an anxious dealing at arms le nglh nor .facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought aboul in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market volue. The determination of market valu,z is the prediclion of an economic evenl vb., a price oulcome o.f hvpolhelical sale expressed in terms of probabilities "

13. In the light of the above definition of the expression 'market value', the aforesaid sale deeds, i.e., Exs.A-8 to A-15, which rvere relied upon by the claimants in support of their claim for enhancement olthe market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. obrviouslv in thc absence of clear cut market value separately lor built-up area and undivided area of land, does not reflect the true and correct market value of the land covered therein. as it does not lall within the definition of expression 'market va I ue' .

14. That apart, a perusal of record shows that Ex.A-19 is the check slip pcrtaining to Ex.P-1S-sale deed. P.W-3-Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar's Olfice, Azampura, in his evidence deposed that the market value of the undivided area of 26 square yards @ 7 AKS,J&LNA,J UAS.N,.l54 oI20l4 Rs.25,000/- works out to Rs.6,50,000/- and the value of the construction @ Rs.480/- for 675 square feet, works out to Rs.3,24,000/-. Thus, the total value of the property, which includes built-up area and undivided area of land under Ex.A-I8-sale deed, as per Ex.A-19-check slip, is Rs.10,41,500/-.

15. This Court has thoroughly examined Ex.A-l8-sale deed, dated 01.08.2007. In the said sale deed, it is mentioned that for flat No.209 admeasuring 675 square feet, as described in the schedule of property, along with the proportionate undivided interest in the land, the consideration paid by the vendee to the vendor is Rs.4,10,000/-. Thus, it is clear that consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- was paid under the sale deed which includes for both built-up area and proportionate undivided area ofland.

16. Thus, it is evident that Ex.A-l8-sale deed is not in accordance with Ex.A-19-check slip issued by the Sub-Registrar's office. Therefore, Ex.A-I8-sale deed cannot form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. 17 . Now, the evidence that remained on record is Ex.R- l- Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. A perusal of Ex.R- l-Award shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to five sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period of three years 8 IKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.No.tsa ol20t 1 preceding the date of 4(l) notification, wherein the market value of the land was ranging from Rs.3,000/_ to Rs.l0,g50/_ per square yard. The market value of the land shown in the sale deed, dated 03.02.2005, at St.No.S is Rs. 10,g50/_ per square yard, is the highest among all the sale deeds. The Land Acquisition Officer has adopted rhe said sale deed, which is the highest of the exemplars, and fixed the market value olrhe acquired land, @Rs.10,g50/_ per square yard. Though thc sale deed 03.02.2005, at Sl.No.S of the Award, is a combined sale deed, the Land Acquisition Officer, after deducting the structure value as assessed by the Sub_ Registrar, u,orked out rhe market value olthe land @ Rs.l0,g50/_ per square yard. In the absence of any sale deed executed in respect of land situated in thc vicinity of the acquired land during the relevant period of three ,r ears prior to 4( I ) notification, the Land Acquisition oflrcer has rightry assessed the market value of the land by taking the assisrance of the Sub-Registrar for assessing the value of the structure covered under the said sale deed and after deducting the value ol rhe srructure lrom the said sale deed, assessed and llxed the market value of the acquired land based on lt. I I 9 AKS,J&LNA,J UAS.No.l5l ol20)1

18. Further, it is settled principle of law that when it is the case of the claimants that the compensation granted by the Reference Court is unreasonable and meager, the burden is upon them to prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the one fixed by the Reference Court, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector and another etc., v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and olhersa. In the instant case, the claimants failed to discharge such burden cast upon them by adducing any evidence or material in support of their contention/claim and hence, they are not entitled for enhancement of market value of the acquired land as was awarded by the Land Acquisition Oflicer and was confirmed by the Relerence Court in the impugned order.

19. ln the light of the loregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Ret-erence Court has rightly confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value'of the acquired land @ Ra.10,850/- per square yard. Hence, the impugned order of the Reference Court warrants no interlerence by this Court and the Appeal is liable to be set aside.

20. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. \ \ 'AIR 1997 SC 2625 l0 AKS,J&LNI,J LA,aS No. I 54 ol 20 t I

21. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO J9INT REGISTRAR \ 1j v SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Additional chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad (with records, if any) ?. 9n" CC to Sri Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ADt(gh HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 q J o o !, oR 1 t{E S}4 /€ ( 11 ilAnM f t)c.l'c.r -- r, ;: ':-, o'l' I JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.154 ot 2014 2 DRAFTS DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS I i i I 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 ALISHETfi LAND ACOUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: '154 OF 14 Between:

1. M.A. Kadir Zaman, S/o Sri Shaik Madar Sab, Aged about 78 years' Occupation: Advocate, R/o H.No. 16-10-49/4, Malakpet, Hyderabad

2.Mrs.Anjumlrfan,D/oM.A.KadirZaman,Agedabout43years'Occupation: Housewife, Rl/o H.No. 16-10149lA, Malakpet, Hyderabad

3.Dr.FaisalZaman,S/oM.A.KadirZaman,Agedabout34years'Occupation: Doctor, Rl/o H.No. 16-1049/A, Malakpet' Hyderabad' ...Appellants/Claimants No'1 to 3 AND 1'TheSpecialDeputyCollector,LandAcquisitron,GreaterHyderabadMunicipa| Corporation, HYderabad.

2. Muzattaruddin khan, S/o Naseeruddin Khan' Aged about 43 years' occupation Busiriess' No 1O-2.289t1o1 ' 4th Road' Shanthrnagar, Hyderabad 500 028. Smt. Amalual Jameel, Wo Naseeruddin Khan, 76 years, Occupation Household, No 10-2-2891101 , 4h Road, Shantrnagar, Hyderabad-28 Mrs. Mehaboob Begum, R/o H N no 16-8-933/E NLG X Road' Malakpet' Hyderabad-24 Mrs. Mujataba Hussain Hyderi' R/o H No 16-8-933/E, NLG X Road' Hyderabad-24 Mlstafa Hussain, R/o H.No. '16-8-933/E, NLG X Road' Malakpet' Hyderabad- 24. .'i 3 4 5 b ( Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are not necessary parties to this appeal) ... ResPondenUResPondent Appeal Under Sec{ion 54 of L.A Act 1894 Riw Section 96 of-the CP^C ^against tne luao'nlent and decree aateO iS-Oa-2014 made in LA.O P No.766 of 2013 on the ilr.;iii,z ;;;raoitne xinaoitional chief Judge, citv civil court, Hvderabad 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 G M Mohiuddin representing Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate for the Appellants and of AGP for Appeals for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the respondent No.2 to 6. This Cou( 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 JOrlrT REGTSTRAR slCTION OFFICER To, 1 The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copres ADK HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 DECREE LAAS.No.154 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS o )