Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs V.Ramulamma on 5 July, 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.No.6 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed by the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.02.2015 passed in O.P.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad whereby the compensation for the land acquired at Gagan Mahal, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad, was enhanced from Rs.4,961/- per square yard to Rs.10,000/-per square yard.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on the requisition made by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III, MCH, house bearing No.3-6-664/1 admeasuring 41.82 square yards at Gagan Mahal, Himayatnagar Mandal, Hyderabad, belonging to the respondents/claimants was acquired for the purpose of road widening from Liberty junction to Narayanaguda junction; that 2 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.6 of 2019 draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "the Act") was published on 08.09.2004; that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed an Award dated 12.12.2006, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.4,916/- per square yard apart from granting other benefits to the respondents.
3. Not being satisfied with the said Award, the respondents/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
4. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.W-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the Reference Officer, none was examined and no document was marked.
5. It is contended by Ms. Babitha, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court without considering the nature of the acquired property, it being a small extent, has erred in doubling the market 3 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.6 of 2019 value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the Reference Court having observed that no evidence was adduced by the respondents/claimants, erred in enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Sri V.Hari Haran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, contended that the acquired land is situated in prime location and it is nearby to commercial locality, i.e., on the main road leading to Liberty junction to Narayanaguda junction and as such, it fetches high market value, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired property and the same needs no interference by this Court.
7. To support their claim, claimant No.2 got examined herself as P.W-1 and deposed that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.25,000/- per yard, however, she has not filed any documentary evidence to prove the same, i.e., by way of filing any contemporary documents pertaining to the years preceding the issuance of draft notification, dated 03.09.2004. She has filed Ex.A-1-Market Value 4 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.6 of 2019 Certificate pertaining to the year 2009 and Ex.A-2-sale deed dated 20.01.2007, but the said two documents pertain to the period subsequent to notification. Hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the market value of the acquired land, as rightly observed by the Reference Court.
8. A meticulous perusal of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer discloses that along with the subject acquired property some other properties were also acquired for the very same purpose of road widening from Liberty junction to Narayanaguda junction. In the said Award, the premises bearing No.3-6-727/1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, is also one of the acquired properties. Here, it is pertinent to note that admittedly, the subject acquired property was bearing House No.3-6-664/1. Thus, it shows that the subject acquired property is in the vicinity of the premises bearing No.3-6-727/1. The Land Acquisition Officer while adjudicating the claim with regard to the premises bearing No.3-6-727/1, observed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per square yard and accordingly, fixed the market value of the acquired property therein as 5 AKS,J & LNA, J LAAS.No.6 of 2019 Rs.25,000/- per square yard. So, if the said market value of the surrounding acquired land is taken into consideration, even in the absence of any evidence adduced in support of the claim of the respondents/claimants, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the market value of the subject acquired land would be as low as Rs.4,961/- as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, this Court feels that the market value for the subject acquired land fixed by Reference Court is quite fair and reasonable and as such, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J 05.07.2024 dr