Telangana High Court

The Special Deputy Collector, ... vs M/S. Sama Enclave Partnership ... on 21 September, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi, M.G.Priyadarsini

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                               AND

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

     L.A.A.S. Nos. 640 of 2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Justice G. Sri Devi)


        The lis in this batch of Appeals preferred by the Special

Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Unit-I, Outer Ring Road

Project, HMDA, Hyderabad is directed against the common order

dated 29.04.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.947, 946, 1325, 944,

132, 942 and 943 of 2008 respectively, on the file of the Special

Sessions Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.


2.      For the purpose of construction of Trumphet Interchange

on NH-7, connecting Outer Ring Road and International Airport,

Shamshabad, the land of the claimants admeasuring Ac.22.28

guntas in Sy.Nos.194, 271, 282, 287 to 298, situated at

Shamsabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was

acquired by the Government by issuing draft notification under

Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the

Act") on 24.05.2006 followed by draft declaration. After due
                                 2
                                                     GSD, J & MGP, J
                            Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014


enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on

24.11.2007 fixing the market value of the acquired land at

Rs.1200/- per square yard. Not satisfied with the compensation

determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed

protest petition and sought for reference under Section 18 of

the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The reference

Court, by the impugned order has enhanced the market value of

the acquired land from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/- per square

yard. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed by the

Land Acquisition Officer.


3.    Heard Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the

claimants. Perused the material available on record.


4.    Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has contended

that the Land Acquisition Officer having examined several sale

statistics in the vicinity has rightly fixed the market value at

Rs.1200/- per square yard but the reference Court erroneously

enhanced the compensation from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/- per

square yard without there being any cogent evidence.             The

claimants except marking Ex.A1-sale deed, wherein the land
                                 3
                                                     GSD, J & MGP, J
                            Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014


was sold at Rs.10,579/- per square yard, have not produced any

other documents. Even the sale transaction covered by Ex.A1 is

dated 09.09.2005 and whereas Section 4 (1) of notification is

dated 24.05.2006 i.e., there is only a time gap of nine months

and therefore, the same ought not to have been taken into

consideration.


5.    On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the claimants has contended that apart from oral

evidence adduced by the claimants, Ex.A1-sale transaction,

dated 09.09.2005, would reflect that the land in the vicinity was

sold at Rs.3,60,00,000/- per acre. Further, the land covered by

Ex.A1 is facing to NH-7 and the acquired lands are also facing

NH-7 leading from Hyderabad to Bangalore.           Therefore, the

reference Court has given cogent reasons while accepting the

sale transactions which were taken place prior to the 4 (1)

notification and has rightly relied on Ex.A1 and enhanced the

market value of the acquired land from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/-

per square yard which needs no interference by this Court.


6.    As seen from the record, the individual claimants were

examined as P.W.1 and they have marked the sale transaction
                                    4
                                                       GSD, J & MGP, J
                              Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014


covered by Ex.A1 dated 09.09.2005, which is nine months

earlier to the date of notification in the present acquisition

proceedings.    Further, the record discloses that the land

covered by Ex.A1 and the present acquired lands are facing NH-

7, highway leading from Hyderabad to Bangalore, which shows

that the lands are useful for commercial purpose. Further, the

acquired lands are situated within the village limit of

Shamsabad,     near   to   Rajiv   Gandhi    International    Airport.

Although the claimants claimed that the acquired land is within

the distance of 1.5 km. from Rajiv Gandhi International Airport

and the land under Ex.A1 is 4 kms. away from the airport and

therefore, the land under acquisition would fetch Rs.30,000/-

per square yard, in the absence of any evidence adduced by

them in this regard, the reference Court has rightly rejected the

said claim.    Taking into consideration the proximity of the

acquired land with Ex.A1 and the common commercial nature,

the reference Court rightly relying on Ex.A1-sale deed, has

enhanced the market value from Rs.1200/- to Rs.10,500/- per

square yard, which is just and reasonable.            Therefore, this
                                 5
                                                     GSD, J & MGP, J
                            Laas_640_2013, 1, 2, 3, 41, 46 and 54_2014


Court is not inclined to interfere with the enhancement of

market value fixed by the reference Court.


7.        At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the

claimants/ respondents has contended that there is ambiguity

as to the grant of interest on the solatium and additional market

value. The said issue is no more res integra as the same has

already been considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex

Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India1. While

considering various decision of the High Courts and approving

the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in

State of Haryana v. Kailashwati2, the Apex Court held that

"the interest awardable under Section 28 would include within

its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. In

view of the same, it is clear that the person entitled to the

compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest in the

aggregate amount including solatium." The above position has