Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Vempati Krishnaiah on 23 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.No.320 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant. None appears for respondent/claimant.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer
(Revenue Divisional Officer), Khammam, aggrieved by the order
and decree dated 29.12.2016 passed in L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2003 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Reference Court').
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that land admeasuring
Acs.25.13 ¾ guntas situated in Sy.Nos.106, 107, 108, 115, 116,
120, 137, 141, 162, 163, 214, 215, 217, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267,
273, 274, 275, 178, 179, 325, 326, 327, 332, 214, 215 and 142 of
Edulapuram, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, which
includes the land belonging to the respondent/claimant to an extent
of Ac.0.04 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.326/2C and 327/2AA of
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
Edulapuram, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, were
acquired for the purpose of widening and strengthening of
Warangal-Khammam-Thallada road; that possession of the subject
land was taken on 20.11.2000; and that the Land Acquisition
Officer, after conducting necessary award enquiry, passed Award
No.13/2002, dated 22.05.2002, granting compensation of
Rs.11,906/- to the respondent/claimant for the acquired land.
4. The respondent/claimant received the compensation
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2003 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the
respondent/claimant, the claimant got himself examined as P.W-1
and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the Referring
Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. The Reference Court by the impugned order enhanced the
market value of the acquired land to Rs.275/- per square yard, apart
from granting other benefits under the Act to the
respondent/claimant.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Reference
Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the
Reference Court erred in relying upon the exhibits marked on
behalf of the respondent/claimant and thereby, erred in enhancing
the compensation exorbitantly, that too, on yardage basis, instead
of on acreage basis and therefore, he seeks to set aside the
impugned order of the Reference Court.
9. In the instant case, before the Reference Court, the
respondent/claimant, in support of his claim for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, has got
marked as many as six exhibits, i.e., Exs.A-2 and A-3-certified
copies of order and decree passed in LAOP.No.15 of 2003,
respectively, Ex.A-5-photostat copy of common judgment passed
in LAAS.Nos.186 and 241 of 2011 and Ex.A-6-photostat copy of
order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No. /2014,
CC.No.525/2014.
10. It is undisputed that the subject lands situated in
Sy.Nos.326/2C and 327/2AA belonging to the respondent/claimant
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
were acquired along with other lands as stated supra, for the
purpose of widening and strengthening of Warangal-Khammam-
Thallada road and the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award
No.13/2002 for the acquired lands.
11. The very purpose of acquisition of the subject lands i.e., for
the widening and strengthening of Warangal-Khammam-Thalla
road itself shows that the acquired lands are abutting the road.
P.W-1 deposed that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of
2 kms from RTC bus stand, railway station, DRDA Office and
many houses were also constructed near the acquired lands.
12. R.W-1-Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence admitted
that hundreds of transactions took place in and around the acquired
lands during the years 1990 to 2000 on square yard basis. He
further admitted that 325 sale transactions took place in respect of
Sy.Nos.70, 81, 113 and 126 of Edulapuram, out of which 274 sale
transactions took place on yardage basis. In background of such
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Land Acquisition
Officer has erred in fixing the market value of the acquired lands
on acreage basis, which was rightly interfered with by the
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
Reference Court, on reference, and the market value of the
acquired lands was fixed on yardage basis.
13. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A-2 is the order passed in
LAOP.No.15 of 2003, with respect to the subject lands therein
situated in Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, which
were acquired for the purpose of widening and strengthening of
Warangal-Khammam-Thallada road and the Reference Court
enhanced market value of the acquired lands to Rs.275/- per square
yard. The order of the Reference Court was challenged before the
High Court by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide LAAS.Nos.186
of 2010 and 241 of 2011, but the said cases stood dismissed, vide
common judgment, dated 09.07.2012. The matter was carried in
appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under Ex.A-6, the said
case was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the
order of the Reference Court. Thus, the matter has attained finality.
14. The purpose of acquisition of the subject acquired lands are
same as that of the subject lands covered under the aforesaid
common judgment dated 09.07.2012 passed in LAAS.Nos.186 of
2010 and 241 of 2011, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
Court in SLP(C).No.3315 of 2014, vide judgment dated
31.01.2014.
15. However, in the case on hand, the acquired lands are situated
in Edulapuram Village, while the lands covered under the aforesaid
common judgment, dated 09.07.2012, passed in LAAS.Nos.186 of
2010 and 241 of 2011, are situated at Khanapuram Haveli.
16. Here, it is relevant to note the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another 1,
wherein it is held that 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.
17. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bal Ram's case (cited supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the aforesaid common judgment dated
09.07.2012 passed in LAAS.Nos.186 of 2010 and 241 of 2011 is
squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
2010(5) SCC 747
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
18. Therefore, in view of the common judgment dated
09.07.2012 passed by this Court in LAAS.Nos.186 of 2010 and
241 of 2011, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
20. As a sequel, interim order dated 15.04.2021 granting stay
shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:23.08.2024
dr
