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
