Sri C v. Rajeeva Reddy The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP for Railways Counsel for the Respondents 'l 1 to 13: Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.68 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bte Smt. Justice Tirumata Deui Ead&) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the ActJ is preferred by the appeilants - claimants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.1O.2013 passed in O.P.No.97 of 2OO7 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter relerred 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 facts of the case in brief are that the land to an extent of Ac.i7-3O % guntas situated at Deshrajpalli village of Ramadugu Mandal, Kairmnagar district along with other structures, residential houses, standing crops, trees has been acquired by the Government for formation of the new broad gauge single railway line from Karimnagar to Jagtial. A draft notification was published on 08.07.2O02, thet: the Government took possession of the said land on 30.11.2OO2. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value @Rs.4O,O00/- per acre to the acquired lands and also has granted Rs.7,06,5OOl- per structure, Rs.2,O8,O62/- for 2 AKS,I & ETD,J tAAs No.68 2016 residential houses in survey Nos.415, Rs.80,455/- per topes in survey Nos.341 & 4O0, and Rs.78,2031- for standing crops, Rs.27 ,597 l- for trees. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have made an application seeking enhancement of the compensation and the sarne was referred under SecLion 18 of the Act to the reference Court,

4. The relerence Court has framed the following points for consideration: Whether the claimants are entitLed for enhancernent of cctmpensation and if so, uhat Loas the market ualue ought to haue fxed bg the Land Acquisition Olficer for t!rc lands aaqLired from the claimants?

2. To what relieJ?"

5. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Pl to P4, while the respondents have not adduced any evidence.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to that of Rs.2,9O,000/ - per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for 3 AKS,J & EID,' LAAS No.68 2016 respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsei for respondenl Nos. 11 to 13. tr earned appellants counsel has argrred that the reference a. Court ought to have enhanced the cqmpensation upto Rs.8,00,OOO/- per acre instead of Rs.2,90,O0O l- per acre and that the reference Court ought to have seen that the acquired lands are well developed agricultural lands cultivated through well water and also through SRSP canal water arrd that the lands are of red chelka soil in nature, which are rich in fertility and have high potentiality and utility. He further submitted that the acquired lands are double crop dry and wet iands and that the owners used to raise commercial crops like cotton, chilly, groundnut, green gram and vegetables. He further submitted that tJle lands around the acquired iands are being sold as house sites on yardage basis and that they have high potentiality of being sold as house sites. He further submitted that the acquired lands are abutting the village which is fulty developed with High School, Electricity, Telecommunication, Veterinary Hospital, Transport facilities, cotton mills, dairy farms, pou1try farms, weaving units and brick manufacturing units. He further submitted that the lands in neighbouring village Vedira which is away from Karimnagar have also been acquired for the very same railway line. The notification l a 4 AXS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68 2016 was given for the said acquisition on 04.O8.20O2 while the present notilication is on 08.O7.2002 and that in the said lands at Vedira, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.4O,O00/- per acre to Rs.3,4O,OOOf - per acre. He thr.rs, prayed this Court to set aside the award of the reference Court and enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal.

9. Learned respondent counsel has opposed and submitted that the reference Court has examined the entire evidence and has enhanced the compensation to that of Rs.2,9O,000/ - and that there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the reference Court. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appea_l. I

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the foilowing points for determination:

1. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the judgrnent zild decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. to what relief.? i 1. POINT NO. 1: a) A perusal of the oral evidence reveals that pW1 is one of the claimants, he spoke about the fertility of their lands and also their earnings. His evidence further reveals that the market value on I 5 AKSJ & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016 the date of acquisition was Rs.20,00O1- per gunta and that their lands are surrounded by rice mills, oil mills, saw mills, poultry farms etc., and that if at all the Land Acquisition Offrcer has not acquired their lands, they could have easily earned @Rs.25,0O,O00/- per acre, on par with the othbr unacquired lands, which are being sold as on date. That their net annual income of the said lands through the commercial crops was Rs. 1,00,O00/- per acre and that by the time of said acquisition, the said lands were converted to residential purpose and were being sold as house sites. The said aspect was not considered by the Land Acquisition Oflicer. It is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 that the acquired lands are abutting PWD road and that it is about a distance of half KM from the said road and that the said acquired lands fall on either side of the railway line. b) PW2 is a vendee in the registered sale deed marked under Ex.P3. His evidence reveals that he purchased the land under Ex.P3 for a sum of Rs.38,O00- @ Rs.60/- per square yard. PW3 is the vendor in the sale deed marked under Ex.P2. His evidence reveals that he has sold his land for a sum of Rs.7,3O0/ - @ Rs.60.33 per square yard, which works out to Rs.2,92,000/- per acre. Nothing much couid be elicited through their cross exarcilration to discredit their evidence. ....? I 6 AKS,J & ETD,.J LAAS No.68,2016 c) RWl is the RDO, Karimnagar who deposed based on record and has admitted that the railway line which is passing towards Jagiryal is parallel to the pWD road leading to Jagityal from Karimnagar and that there are commercial complexes and residential houses situated beside the pWD road on either side. He has also admitted that the lands are abutting pWD road and also that there are commercial establishments adjacent to the lands acquired. d) The claimants have relied upon Exs.pl to p4 u,hich are the sale deeds dated tt.O7.2OO2, 20.06.2000, 18.07.20O1 and

29.O3.2OO1 respectively. A perusal of the record reveals that Ex.pl is the sale deed, dated ll.OZ .2OO2 which is subsequent to the notilication and hence not considered. Under Ex.p2 an extent of 121 Sq.Yards in survey No.568/C was sold @ Rs.6O/- per square yard, which comes to a total vaiue of Rs.7,3O0/-. Under Ex.p3 an extent of 633 Sq.yards in survey No.419/B was sold @) Rs.6O/_ per square yard, which comes to a total value of Rs.3g,00O/-. Under Ex.P4 an extent of 56O square yards in survey N.636/E was sold at Rs.6O/- per square yard, which comes to a tora_l value of Rs.33,600/-. On an average, it fetches around Rs.2,90,000/_ per acre. \ 7 AKS,J & ETO,J LAAS No.68-2016 e) Thus, the ora-l evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence i.e. sale deeds under Exs.P2 to P4 prove that the market value of the acquired lands was higher ttran what was awarded by theLandAcquisitionOfficer,therefore,consideringthesaidfacts' the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation from Rs.40,OOO/- to that of Rs.2,9O,O0O/- per acre' f) Though the claimants seek for furtlrer enhancement' this Court is of the opinion that the compensation cannot be enhanced further in the absence of any otl:rer documentary evidence' The sale deeds frled by the claimants portray that the value of the land was Rs.6O/- per square yard. It is their own evidence to the effect that the value of the land is around Rs'2,90,O0O/- per acre' Considering the said fact, there is no infirmity with regard to the award passed by ttre reference Court, therefore, the claim of the appellants is not justified. Hence, it is held that the claimants are not entitled to further enhancement of compensation in this appeal. Point No.1 is answered accordingly'

1.2. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at in the Point No'l' this Court holds that the judgment and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference. 8 AKS,] & TID,I l-AA5 No.68_2016

13. POINT NO.3: In the resuit, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 1O. 10.2013 passed in O.p.No.97 of 2OO7 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K, SRINIV JOINT A RAO STRAR SECTION FFICER To,r 1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar. (with records, if any)

2. Two CCs to GP for Railways, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

3. One CC to Sri /1. Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/DL ,ffi HIGH COURT DATED: 271A212025 \ r 11 .s .,'' n" ,/,/ z /;," t o i! ,l I .\ \* (\ _.nQ a ,1/gii.l t JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.68 of 2016 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS { \b