The High Court · 2025

CpC praying that in the r,i cumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne.petitiJn, #Fi;il 9oy,t ir rv be preased to Stay the execution of the iudgment and 0""i"" "ort"o 3c 06-2018 passed in L A o P No 343 of 2012 uv.tie uonourabr;ii; niirtionar ( hief Judse, c,v crvir court at Hyderabad and tiris nonoriorr" cor.t ,u'v" rr.o p: ss such other further order or orders as this Honourabr" cor.t r*v ol",i'it fit ,n r proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case_ Counsel for the Appellant : Gp for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. N Vasudeva Reddy The Court delivered the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHINAND KUN{AR SI{AVILI AND HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAAS.Nos.306 of 2018 & 101 OF 2019 COMMONJUDGMENTi (p{ t tor'bh i,; Jx,/rc )blintnd ttn.tr J.tutiti) Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed in L.AO.P.No.343 of 2012 bythe )O(V Additional Chief Judge, Gry Gvil Court, Hyderabad, LAAS No.306 of 2018 is filed bythe appellants-claimants and against the verysame order and decree, the Special Depury C-ollector-Referring Officer has filed LAAS No.101 of 2019. Vtren the ma[ers are taken up for hearing, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and leamed Govemment Pleader for Appeals- responde nt- Ref erring Of f ice r had informed this Coun that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely coveged by the common judgment of this Court in LAAS.No.305 of 2018 and99 of 2019,dated14.08.2025. Following the common judgment dated 14.08.2025 in LAAS.No.3O5 of 2018 and99 of 20L9, and for reasors alike, LAAS No.306 of 2018 is allowed and the order and decree dated )

10.06.2018 passed in L.AO.P.No.I43 ol 2072 l,r, the XXV \ Additional Chief Judge, Gty Gvil Coun, Hyderab r [. is set aside and accordingly, the cornpensation awarded br. r-re rcference (bun is enhanced from Rs.35,00A/ - per sq r rre yard to Rs.45,000/- per squnrc yard. LAAS No.101 of 20 L , filed by the Special Depury Co[ector is dismissed. No costs. N4iscelhneous petitions, if any, pending shaLl : rand closed. SI) - R.KARTHIKEYAN ,OINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// \, SECTION OFFICER To, 1' The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, rt Hyderabad (With , !T:t33t GP for Appeals to the' State of Telangana' l-i' h Court Buildings' at : o'n" Ct ro dri N Vasudeva Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies HYderabad (OUT) DL/PSL \+ HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT LAAS.No.306 of 2018 & 101 of 2019 r-1E S () Y -' iri- i!25 o a o, * ( \: ALLOWING LAAS Nos. 306 of 2008 & DIMISSING THE LAAS No. 101 of 2019 ?.o{"L X* HON'BLE SRIJUSTIGE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA L.A.A.S.N Os.305 OF 2018 AN D 99 0F 2019 COMMON JUDGMEN T: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short'the Act') are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed in L.A.O.p.No.345 of 2012 by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference Court').

2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same order and decree passed by the reference Court, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

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

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the land to an extent of Ac.1 66.26 Sq.yards was acquired for the purpose of road widening for metro rail. The draft notification under Section a() of the Act was published in the gazette on 19.09.2008 and the possession was taken over on 3O.O1 .2011. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has granted Rs.24,111t- per square yard. 2 AKS,,/ & ETD,J Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made :rr application and the same was referred under Section 1g of the Act kr rhe court of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

5. The case of the claimants is that out of the prenri ;es bearing municipal No.4-'l-689 an extent of 166.26 Sq.yards t: yether with compound wall and part of the structures have been acqrr 'ed by LAO for the purpose of road widening for metro rail and t.r lt the said property is abutting main road and is in the heart of Hyrl rrabad City close to many Government offices, schools and commerc i I buildings. Thus, the acquired property has high potentiality for activity and is in a developed area and is adjacent 1 Commercial Complex and is nearby Mozam Jahi market. ,o m mercial r Vikranth fhus, their contention is that the market value of the acquired lan J is around Rs.50,0001 to Rs.60,000/- per square yard and Rs.2,000r to 2,5OOl- per square feet for compound wall. But the LAO has meager amount of Rs.24,711l_ per square yard and Rs.1,3 granted a j,3491- for the compound wall.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed counter deny ng all the contentions of the craimants, except admitting the facts wifl- regard to the notification and passing of the award. I I I I 7 3 AKs,J & ETD,J T Based on the above preadings, the reference court has framed the following points for consideration: "1 2 Whether the compensation amount awarded bv LAO is reasonable and in accordance with th6 market value? Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation amount, if so how much?

3. To what relief?" B. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined pWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.Bi to 84 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.35,000/_ per Sq.yard, apart from awarding the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred LAAS No.305 of 201g, while the Special Deputy Collector has preferred LAAS No.99 of 2019.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the craimants and the rearned Government pleader for the Special Deputy Collector. L 4 AK5,] & ETD,J

11. The learned counsel for the claimants arguec that the sale deed executed under Ex.Al is considered by the r ference Court wherein the land was sold @ Rs.45,000/- per squar , yard but has awarded Rs.35,000/- per square yard to the acquired i nd. He further argued that the acquired land is abutting the main roac and that there is no reason for the reference Court to reduce the valt :, he therefore prayed to consider Ex.Al and he further argued thil the reference Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper : :rspective and has discarded Ex.A1 without there being any reason. has considered Ex.A1 and held that it could fet At one point, it ;h a price of Rs.45,000/- per square yard but again it was ob; rrved that the acquired land may not fetch the same price and har; went ahead in awarding Rs.35,000/- per square yard, which is not tt st and proper. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation t n par with the value mentioned in Ex.A1 by allowing his appeal.

12. The learned Government Pleader has argued hat the award passed by the LAO is as per the guidelines and as p: the prevailing market value and that there was no necessity for the r >ference Court to enhance the same. He further argued that Ex.A1 p't rtains to a part of the multi-storied building which cannot be relied u: rn and without there being any reason, the reference Court has enhanced the 5 AKS,J & ETO,J compensation to Rs.35,000/- per square yard and that the reference Court ought not to have taken a small extent of 22 Sq.yards of undivided share of land under Ex.A1 as a yard stick for enhancement of compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the reference Court by allowing the appeal.

13. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

14. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the award copy unde.r Ex.B'l reveals that the property acquired is only in an extent of 166.26 Sq.yards. PWl has also deposed that the land acquired is only 166.26 Sq.yards. PW1 further has relied upon Ex.A1 . A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that, land in the vicinity is sold on yardage basis @ Rs.45,000/- per square yard, which is a part of the multi-storied building wilh 22 Sq.yards of the undivided share and also car parking. 6 AKs,J & ETD,J b) lt is further revealed from the award/Ex.B1 lt at the property acquired is situated along the main road connectitt t Putli Bowli to Mozam Jahi market and that it is a commercial area. c) The counsel for the claimants has also filed tr : village sketch map, under Ex.A3 before the reference Court. A perr ;al of Ex.A3/the sketch map reveals that the acquired land is abutting the main road, while a perusal of Ex.A1 further reveals that one of the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the property that is solr under it is the house number which is under acquisition in the p,r ;sent case i.e. H.No.4-1-689. That means both are abutting ear; other, with a common boundary on the western side of the proper y under Ex.A1. The sketch map also reveals that the property unct r acquisition is facing the road leading from Putli Bowli to Mozzrt r Jahi market. Therefore, it is held that the land under acquisition in t e present case has to be awarded the same amount as disclosed ur< er Ex.A1 , while the reference Court has granted Rs.35,000/- per sqLi re yard. lt has to be enhanced to Rs.45,000/- per square yard as i has the same features of the land that is sold under Ex.A1 . Thus. t is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensa.i rn. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 7 AKs,J & ETD,J

15. POINT NO.2: ln view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No..l , this Court holds that the Reference court's order and decree need to be set aside enhancing the compensation from Rs.35,000/- per square yard granted by the reference Court to that of Rs.45,000i- per square yard. 'r6. POINT NO. 3: ln the result, LAAS No.305 of 2O1g filed by the claimants is allowed and the order and decree dated 30.06.201g passed in L.A.O.P.No.345 of 2012 by the tearned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are hereby set aside and accordingly, the compensation awarded by the reference court is enhanced from Rs.35,000/- per square yard to that of Rs.45,000/_ per square yard. LAAS No.99 of 2019 filed by the Special Deputy Collector is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTIC E ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Dale14.08.2025 NS JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA [ 34901 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 306 OF 2018 Between:

1. Sri. J. Aditya Rao, S/o. J. Ranthi Dev Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occupation Pilot,

2. Sri. J. Purender Rao, S/o. J. Ranthi Dev Rao, Aged about 46 years, Occupation Private Service (Both represented by their father and GPA Holder Sri.J. Ranthi Dev Rao, S/o. late Ram Dev Rao, Aged about 77 years, Occ Business. R/ o. H. No.7- 1-22 I '1 1, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16). ...Appellants/Claimants AND The Land Acquisition Officer - cum Special Deputy Collector (L.A ), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ... Res ponde n URes po ndent Appeal under section 54 of L.A.Act 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018 in LA.OP.No. 343 of 2012 on the file of the court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at 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 Sri. N Vasudeva Reddy, for the appellants, GP for Appeals, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

2. That the order and decree dated 30.06.018 passed in L.,a O.P. No. 343 of 201)- by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyd,: abad be and hereby is set aside;

3. That the compensation awarded by the reference cor enhanced from Rs. 35,000/- per square yard to Rs. 45,0r) 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall t be and hereby is )/- per square yards; stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD - R.KARTHIKEYAN ,OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ IECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hrrr erabad 2. fwo CD Copies DL/PSL \4. HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.306 of 2018 ALLOWING LAAS Nos. 306 of 2008 ,eu tu IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REODY LAND ACOUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 101 OF 2019 Between: The special Deputy collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad Metro Rail, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondenUReferri ng Officer AND

1. J.Aditya Rao, Sio.J.Ranthi Deva Rao Age not known years, R/o H.No 4-1- 690, Jambagh,Mozamjahi Market Street, Hyderabad -95' 2. J.Purendar Rao, S/o.J.Ranthi Deva Rao Age not known years. R/o H No.4-1- 690, Jambagh, Mozamjahi Market Street' Hyderabad -95 "'Respondents Appealundersection54ofL.A.ActlBg4againsttheiUdgmentanddecree dated 30.b6.2018 in L.A.O.P.No.343 of 2012 on the file of the court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad' This appeal ioming 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 ufon hearing the arguments of GP for Appeals, for the appellant, Sri. N Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: t That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies b- HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT LAAS.No. 101 of2019 DIMISSING THE LAAS No. 101 ol 2019 tt @P(e'A w 6r.J'5