Telangana High Court
The Projct Director And Special ... vs Smt. Ch. Kalpana 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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
AKS, J & LNA, J
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.
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
2010(5) SCC 747
AKS, J & LNA, J
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.
AKS, J & LNA, J
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.
AKS, J & LNA, J
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.
AKS, J & LNA, J
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
