Telangana High Court
Special Deputy Collector La Land ... vs Mirt Moin Alam Khan on 6 August, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LAAS.Nos.265 and 320 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Though these Appeals are filed against the orders passed in different LAOPs, since the subject acquired lands in both the Appeals are situated in the same Survey number and Village and are acquired for the same purpose, both the Appeals are heard together and being disposed of by common judgment.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and Sri Ashok Reddy Kanthala, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the material available on record.
3. In both the appeals, the appellant is the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Shamshabad, Hyderabad, and the respondents are the claimants.
4. Both the Appeals, LAAS.Nos.265 and 302 of 2017, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.265 & 320 of 2017 are filed aggrieved by separate orders, dated 11.12.2015 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.725 of 2007 and 805 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as "the Reference Court"), respectively, whereby the compensation for the subject acquired lands was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- per square yard to Rs.8,000/- per square yard.
5. The undisputed facts of the case are that on the requisition made by the Zonal Manager, APIIC Limited, Hyderabad, the following lands were acquired for the purpose of laying approach road to I.T. park;-
(i) land admeasuring 2,057 square yards situated in Sy.No.81 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the respondents/claimants in LAAS.No.265 of 2017; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 06.02.2006; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award, dated 21.09.2006, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.5,000/- per square yard; and 3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.265 & 320 of 2017 (2) land admeasuring 687.93 square yards situated in Sy.No.81 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the respondents/claimants in LAAS.No.320 of 2017 were acquired; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 07.02.2006; and the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award, dated 16.07.2007, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.5,000/- per square yard, apart from granting all other benefits under the Act to the respondents/claimants.
6. Not being satisfied with the said Awards, the respondents/claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Act and the same were numbered as L.A.O.P.Nos.725 of 2007 and 805 of 2009 on the file of Reference Court.
7. Before the Reference Court, in LAOP.No.725 of 2007, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked and on behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Copy of Award dated 21.09.2006 was marked.
4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.265 & 320 of 2017
8. Before the Reference Court, in LAOP.No.805 of 2009, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked and on behalf of the appellant- Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Copy of Award dated 16.07.2007 was marked.
9. It is to be noted that in both the LAOPs, Ex.A-1 is one and the same i.e., sale deed bearing document No.685/2005, dated 20.01.2005.
10. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court erred in taking into consideration Ex.A-1-sale deed for fixation of market value of the acquired lands and has erroneously enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned orders.
11. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Reddy Kanthala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, contended that the acquired lands are situated in prime location and are nearby to commercial locality, i.e., the acquired lands are facing Old Bombay 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.265 & 320 of 2017 Road, which is used for commercial purposes like construction of commercial complexes, etc., and as such, it fetches high market value and therefore, by taking into consideration the said aspects and Ex.A-1-sale deed, the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court.
12. There is no dispute as regards the location of the acquired lands that they are facing Old Bombay Road, which has high commercial potentiality and surrounded by commercial complexes, schools, colleges, etc. The very purpose of acquisition of the subject lands, i.e., for laying approach road to I.T. Park, itself makes it evident that the acquired lands are situated in ideal prime place surrounded by commercial establishments. Therefore, one can visualize the demand for the acquired lands being high, which, in turn, fetches very high market price.
13. In the above background of the case, this Court has to adjudicate as to whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired lands is reasonable/justifiable or not?
6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.265 & 320 of 2017
14. To substantiate their claim for enhancement of the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the subject acquired lands, the respondents/claimants have marked Ex.A-1-sale deed, whereunder one Smt. Seema Chandiok sold an extent of 439 square yards in Plot No.17 situated in Sy.Nos.7 and 8 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, for a total consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- i.e., @ Rs.7,993/- per square yard.
15. The land covered under Ex.A-1 and the acquired lands are situated in the same Village i.e., Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Further, before the Reference Court, when the said document was sought to be marked as Ex.A-1, the appellant has not disputed regarding its genuineness.
16. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court has rightly considered the sale price mentioned in Ex.A-1 as comparative sale price and also taking into consideration the location of the acquired lands i.e., in prime locality surrounded by commercial establishments, the Reference Court is justified in 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.Nos.265 & 320 of 2017 fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.8,000/- per square yard.
17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity calling for interference of the impugned orders by this Court and the Appeals are devoid of merits.
18. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed.
19. As a sequel, interim orders dated 29.08.2017 passed in LAASMP.No.423 of 2017 in LAAS.No.265 of 2017 and LAASMP.No.494 of 2017 in LAAS.No.320 of 2017 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:06.08.2024 dr