The High Court · 2025

: SRI GP FOR APPEALS (TG) Counsel for the Respondents : AADESH VARMA The Court made the following :ORDER 1' .,/,, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND I{UMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A,S.No.93 of 2O18 JUDGMENT: (per Llon'ble Sma. Justice Ttunlala Deui Ead.a) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated

22.O8.2OI7 passed in L.A.O.P.No.603 of 2015 by the learned XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter rcferred to as 'the Relerence Court').

2. For convenience and clarily, the panies herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.

3. The facts of thc case in brief are that the District Collector, Hyderabad proposed to acquirc the land for the purpose of Hyderabad Metro Rail project at Shaikpet village and the draft notilication under Scction 4(1) ol the Act was published in the Gazette on 2O.O7.2013. Aftcr conducting ciue enquiry, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has awarded a compensation of Rs.65,O0O /- per square yard. Aggrieved by lhe said award, the claimant has made an application and the same was referred under Section 18 of the -E--: AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.93 2018 2 Act to the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, r)ity Civil Court, Hyderabad

4. The case of the clain'rant was that he is tl-Le owner of the premises bearing No.S 2-293/82lAl483lH admeasuring 1191 square yards, situated at Jubilce Hi11s, HyderabrLd and that he applied for GHMC permission for construction of ccllar for parking, part of the ground floor for construction of shops and in addition to that four floors for showrooms and that the permission was also sanctioned by thc GHMC vide permit No.. 16/95, clated

29.O7 .2006.

5. The Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration "Whether the claimant is entitled for enharcement of compensation as prayed ?,,

6. At the time of tria1, the claimant got examincl pWs 1 and 2 and got markcd trxs.A1 to AlO. On behalf of the rer;por-rdent, RW1 was cxamined.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.65,OO0/_ per ijquare yard to Rs.9 1,320.32 ps. per square yard, in addition to statutory benefits. 3 AKS,] & ETD,] tAAs No.93 2018 Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The learned Government Pleacler has submitted that the order and decree of the reference Court is contrary to law and facts and it ought not to have enhanced the compensation and that the reference Court has simply believed the evidence of the claimant and the documents under Exs.A 1 to A6 and has erroneously enhanced the compensation, therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the reference Court.

10. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the reference Court has considered the evidence in a proper perspective and has rightly assessed the compensation, hence, therefore, prayed to uphold the same. 1 1. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 J Whether the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensalion? Whether the order and decrec of the reference Court need any interference? To what relieP -a.'1* 4 AKS,] & ETD,I LAAS No.93 2018

12. POINT NO.1: a) Though the claimant has contended befor: the reference Court that he has spent Rs.2O,00,000/- for d<rvelopment and construction, he has not filed any document to pror,e lhc same and the said fact is admitted b1, him in his cross exa:lrination. pW 1 also stated that he has not filed any document to show the markct value in the locality where the land was acquired, is Rs_ 1,00,000/_ per square yard. It is elicited from the evidence of pW2 that the acquired property is on the main road having commercial value. b) RWl has admitted that the lands abufting |-re road leading from Jubilee hi1ls check post to Madhapur is a ccmmercial arca. Further, Exs.A 1 to ,{6 are the market value certifir:ates issueci by the Joint Sub-registrar which reveal that the marl:et value of the property is Rs.65,000/- per square yard for residcr.rtial area. The said markeL value is as per the market value gurde as on

01.04.2015. The sale deeds are filed under Exs.A7 and AB. Ex.A7 was executed in June 2O11, wherein an extent ol 2,O37 squarc yards of land was purchased for an amount of Rs.20,37,00,000i _ and that it shows the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- per square yard. However, the said consideration includes the valu: of the house located on the 1and. Therefore, the actual value of the land alone could not have been Rs.1,00,OOO/, per square yard in thc 1,s2. 5 AKs,J & ETD,] LAAS No.93 2018

2011. Further, Ex.AS, dated 06.07.2013, reflects the value of the land along with constructed apartments and commercial spaces. The said sale deeds cannot come to the aid of the claimant in reflecting the market value of the land that is acquired, because the said sale deeds include the house/ apartmehts along with the land. c) However, the basic market value certillcates issued under trxs.A1 to 4.6 uniformly portray the market value as Rs.65,0O0/- per square yard from 2010 to 2015. Therefore, thc reference Court has rclied upon the said documents and further applied the principle laid down in Kashmir Singh u. State of Harganal , wherein it was held that an escalation of l2%o per annum can be adopted by the Courts to arrive at an adequate amount of compensation. Thus, the reference court has added 12% escalation to the market value as disclosed from Exs.Al to ^46 and has enhanced the compensation to Rs.91,32O/- per square yard t ( along with the statutory benehts of additional market value and solatium. Hence, it is opined that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, while that granted by Land Acquisition Officer was on a lower side. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation and the compensation ' lzor+1 z scc roa 6 AKS,J & EID,I LAAS No.93 2018 arrived at by the reference Court is held to be justiied. point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO,2: In view of the reasoned finding arrivcd'at point No.1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference. 1,4. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decrec datcd 22.O8.20i7 passed in L.A.O.p.No,603 of 2015 by thc learned XXIV Additional Chief Judge, Cit.;r Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous PeLitions pending, if any, shall stand closecl \ //TRUE COPY// " I '-Utr 'L'FY/' To, Svs/PSL '1 . The XX|V Additionat chief Judge, City Civil Court, ff!d"r, 2. Two CCs to the Government CteaOei For Alpeats, High 3. One CC to Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies Telangana. Hyderabad. Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD A\SSl TANT REGISTRAR /\ \ " ') I i secrto N OFFICER bad. Court for the state of HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 I t'' 4=- arir E L (0 t' aA < -.'r[ HE S I4T 6 3" 24 Jttlt 26 Ji rr 1 L) I )) ,i I JUDGMENT LAAS.No.93 of 2018 i DISMISSING THE LAAS WITH OUT COSTS