Telangana High Court
St. Martins Educational Society vs The Project Director And Special ... on 22 November, 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.382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 397, 470 and 471 of 2016 and
193, 210, 224, 234, 243, 253, 256 and 272 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Since all the Appeals arise out of the common order and decree passed by the Reference Court and the issue involved in all the Appeals are interconnected, all the Appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Smt. D.Madhavi Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned Sanding Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), and Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel on record for the claimants. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. LAAS.Nos.382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 397, 470 and 471 of 2016 are filed by the claimants, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act'), against the common order and decree, dated 10.06.2016, passed in LAOP.Nos.327 of 2016, 839 of 2011, 329 of 2016, 842 and 845 of 2011 and 328, 326 2 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch and 325 of 2016, respectively, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court"), praying this Court to further enhance the compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
4. LAAS.Nos.193, 210, 224, 234, 243, 253, 256 and 272 of 2017 are filed by the Project Director & Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Hyderabad, under Section 54 of the Act, against the aforesaid common order and decree, passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.326, 327, 328, 329 and 325 of 2016 and 842, 839 and 845 of 2011, respectively, praying this Court to set aside the impugned common order of the Reference Court.
5. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Reference Court in the impugned common order.
6. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that a requisition was made by the Estate Officer, HUDA, for acquisition of lands to an extent of Acs.239.15 guntas in various survey numbers of Dundigal Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which includes the lands of the claimants herein at Dundigal Village, for 3 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch formation of Outer Ring Road (for short 'ORR'); that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 13.04.2005; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 20.04.2006; that after conducting enquiry and after following the due procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer, initially, passed Award No.14 of 2008, dated 10.05.2008 in respect of the acquired lands in Sy.Nos.381, 382 and 383, and thereafter, Award No.21 of 2008, dated 25.07.2008, fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.4,75,000/- per acre.
7. Challenging the aforesaid Awards, the claimants have approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10052 of 2009 and batch and the said cases were disposed of directing the Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine the compensation after verifying the documents of the writ petitioners therein, who are the claimants herein, their co-owners and co-parties or other interested persons. In pursuance of the said order, the Land Acquisition Officer has re-determined the compensation and passed two Awards, both dated 30.06.2010, again fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.4,75,000/- per acre. To put in 4 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch detail, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed Award, vide proceedings No.LA/Unit-V/02/ORR/-05, dated 20.06.2010, in respect of total land admeasuring Acs.9.30 guntas in Sy.Nos.481, 482 and 483 of Dundigal Village and Award, vide proceedings No.27/L.A/Unit-V/ORR/2005, dated 30.06.2010, in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.481 of Dundigal Village.
8. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the respective acquired lands sought references under Section 18 of the Act, seeking to enhance the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.4,75,000/- per acre to Rs.5,000/- per square yard or Rs.1,50,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits under the Act, and the same were referred to the competent civil Court and were numbered as LAOP.Nos.839, 842, 845 of 2011, 325, 326, 327, 328 and 329 of 2016 on the file of the Reference Court.
9. The Reference Court had clubbed all the Claim Petitions (LAOPs), recorded common evidence in all the LAOPs and rendered common order, which is impugned herein. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-20 were marked. On behalf of the Land 5 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch Acquisition Officer, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1-Award was marked.
10. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court passed the impugned common order enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.4,75,000/- per acre to Rs.36,00,000/- per acre apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. Challenging the aforesaid common judgment, as mentioned supra, some Appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and some Appeals are filed by the claimants.
11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the HMDA contended that the Land Acquisition Officer, taking into consideration the sale transactions of the relevant period and on enquiry, rightly fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands and that the Reference Court failed to see that the subject acquired lands and the lands covered under Exs.A-17 to A-19-Consent Awards are not similar as the lands covered under the said documents are plotted lands whereas the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands. She further contended that the Reference Court has therefore erred in relying upon the Consent 6 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch Awards and enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands and therefore, the impugned common order is liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Reference Court having appreciated the fact that the subject acquired lands and the lands covered under Exs.A-17 to A-19 being acquired for the very same purpose and further, having come to conclusion that the claimants established that the subject acquired lands, though agricultural in nature, are fit for house sites, etc., has not granted the compensation awarded in the said Consent Awards, particularly Ex.A-18-Consent Award, dated 19.06.2007 passed in respect of lands at Kandlakoya Village, wherein compensation was awarded @ Rs.2,775/- per square yard and therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the impugned common order and enhance the compensation for the subject acquired lands.
13. One of the claimants is examined as PW1. He deposed reiterating the case of the claimants in their claim petitions. He has inter alia stated that the acquired lands are plain lands fit for house sites as well as industrial purposes and located in highly developed locality surrounded by industries and other companies; that several 7 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch lands in the vicinity of the acquired lands are converted into house sites, etc., and sold on yardage basis even long prior to date of 4(1) notification; that the plotted lands covered under Consent Awards passed in respect of lands in Kandlakoya, Dummara Pochampally and Gowdavelly Villages and the acquired lands of the claimants at Dundigal Village are similar in nature and both are acquired for the very same purpose and hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation granted by the Reference Court in the impugned common order.
14. Before the Reference Court, as many as twenty exhibits were marked on behalf of the claimants. Exs.A-1 to A-16 are the documents relating to various proceedings that took place from the date of approval of Gazette for acquisition of the subject lands to the date of passing of the Awards by the Land Acquisition Officer. The said documents are undisputed.
15. The claimants have mainly relied upon Exs.A-17 to A-19- Consent Awards in support of their claim for enhancement of market value of the subject acquired lands.
16. In order to determine the true and correct value of the subject acquired lands as on the date of notification, this Court 8 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch undertook the exercise of examining whether said Consent Awards-Exs.A-17 to A-19 relied upon by the claimants are relevant and the compensation awarded therein can be adopted for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands.
17. Ex.A-17 is the Consent Award, dated 24.08.2007, passed by Lok Adalat in respect of lands acquired in Dummara Pochampally Village, awarding compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard.
18. Ex.A-18 is the Consent Award, dated 19.06.2007, passed by Lok Adalat in respect of lands acquired in Kandlakoya Village, awarding compensation @ Rs.2,775/- per square yard..
19. Ex.A-19 is the Consent Award, dated 31.10.2007, passed by Lok Adalat in respect of lands acquired in Gowdavelly Village, awarding compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard..
20. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the lands covered under Exs.A-17 to A-19-Consent Awards were acquired for the purpose of formation of ORR. The subject lands at Dundigal Village were also acquired for the same purpose. 9
AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch
21. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another 1is squarely applicable to the present batch of cases. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"If the purpose of acquisition and the nature of lands are similar, though they are lying in different villages, there should not be any discrimination in awarding compensation, unless there are strong reasons."
22. As stated supra, the purpose of acquisition of lands at Dundigal Village and the purpose of acquisition of lands covered by Exs.A-17 to A-19 is one and the same i.e., for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road.
23. Further, it is pertinent to note that Exs.A-17 to A-19- Consent Awards are passed in the year 2007. In the instant cases also, initially, Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.4,75,000/- per acre. Later, pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.10052 of 2009, the Land Acquisition Officer has re-determined the compensation and passed two Awards in the year 1 2010(5) SCC 747 10 AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch 2010, however, again fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.4,75,000/- per acre.
24. It is the case of the claimants that though the acquired lands are agricultural lands, they are plain and are fit for house sites as well as industrial purposes since they are located in highly developed locality surrounded by industries, software companies, etc., Further, it is the case of the claimants that the acquired lands have got all amenities like roads, electricity, transportation facilities, etc., and several lands in their vicinity were converted into house sites and were sold on yardage basis. Therefore, the claimants claimed that they are entitled to compensation on yardage basis.
25. Under Exs.A-17 to A-19-Consent Awards, the compensation package was given to the claimants therein on yardage basis, as stated earlier. The villages covered under Exs.A-17 and A-19 i.e., Dummara Pochampally and Gowdavelli, respectively, are in Ranga Reddy District. Dundigal Village wherein the subject acquired lands are situated is also in Ranga Reddy District. The Consent Award-Ex.A-17 was passed in respect of acquired lands at Kandlakoya Village in Medchal District. 11
AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch Hence, it can be said that the subject acquired lands and the acquired lands under Exs.A-17 and A-19, which are situated in the same District i.e., Ranga Reddy District, are coming under the same alignment of Outer Ring Road. Therefore, it can be said that the claimants herein whose lands were acquired by the State for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road are similarly placed as that of the claimants in the Consent Awards-Exs.A-17 and A-19. In such an event, it is not desirable and there is no justification if the claimants herein are awarded lesser compensation than the claimants in Exs.A-17 and A-19. Fairness and reasonableness suggests that similarly placed persons should be given similar benefits without any discrimination whatsoever. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bal Ram's case (cited supra) and to meet the ends of justice and to give fair and reasonable benefit to the claimants herein, it is justifiable to adopt the Consent Awards under Exs.A-17 and A-19 since the lands covered under the said documents are situated nearer to the subject acquired lands compared to the lands covered under Ex.A-18-Consent Award. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation on par with the claimants in Exs.A-17 and A-19. 12
AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch But, here, it is pertinent to note that the lands covered under Exs.A-17 and A-19 are house sites in approved layouts, which would mean that there is no need to deduct towards developmental charges. In the instant cases, the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands. Therefore, while adopting the market value of the lands mentioned in Exs.A-17 and A-19, i.e., Rs.1,500/- per square yard, a deduction of 1/3rd has to be made for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands. By calculating thus, the market value of the subject acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.1,000/- per square yard, i.e., Rs.48,40,000/- per acre.
26. A perusal of the impugned common order of the Reference Court shows that though it has worked out the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.1,000/- per square yard, however, it went wrong while calculating the same on acreage basis and thus, erroneously fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.36,00,000/- per acre.
27. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to fixation of market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.1,000/- per square yard i.e., Rs.48,40,000/- per acre.
13
AKS, J & LNA, J LAAS.No.382 of 2016 and batch
28. Accordingly, the Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e., LAAS.Nos.193, 210, 224, 234, 243, 253, 256 and 272 of 2017 are dismissed.
29. The Appeals filed by the claimants i.e., LAAS.Nos.382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 397, 470 and 471 of 2016 are partly allowed setting aside the impugned common order of the Reference Court and modifying the market value of the subject acquired lands to Rs.48,40,000/- per acre as against the market value fixed by the Reference Court @ Rs.36,00,000/- per acre. Further, it is made clear that except the interest as provided under Sections 28 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimants are not entitled to other statutory benefits under the said Act.
30. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:22 .11.2024 dr