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
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
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
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
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
