Telangana High Court
Amobji Venkateshdied As Per Lr vs The Land Acquistion Officercum on 24 October, 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.6, 9, 11 & 80 of 2018 and 617, 618, 619 & 620 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 issues 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, learned Sanding Counsel appearing
for the appellant-Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
(HMDA), and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned senior counsel,
appearing for Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel on record for
the claimants. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. LAAS.Nos.6, 9, 11 and 80 of 2018 are filed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Hyderabad,
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the
Act'), against the common order and decree, dated 31.08.2017,
passed in LAOP.Nos.50 of 2011, 300, 301 and 302 of 2013 on the
file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
District, at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference
Court"), praying this Court to set aside the impugned common
order.
4. LAAS.Nos.617, 618, 619 and 620 of 2017 are filed by the
claimants/owners of the subject acquired lands, under Section 54 of
the Act, against the common order and decree, dated 31.08.2017,
passed in LAOP.Nos.50 of 2011, 300, 301 and 302 of 2013 on the
file of the Reference Court, praying this Court to enhance the
market value of the subject acquired lands as fixed by 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, HMDA, for acquisition of lands to an
extent of Acs.2-28 guntas in Sy.Nos.19 and 20 of Raviryala
Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for
formation of Outer Ring Road (for short 'ORR'), Phase-II; that
draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in
the newspapers on 11.02.2009 and draft declaration under Section
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on 12.02.2009, in
respect of an extent of Ac.0-38 gts of land in Sy.No.19 and an
extent of Ac.1.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.20; that as per the survey
and sub-division records prepared by the Deputy Inspector of
Survey, the land in Sy.No.16 to an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas was
also coming in ORR alignment and hence, the addendum for land
in Sy.No.16 to an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas was issued; that due to
variation, land to an extent of Ac.0-05 guntas in Sy.No.19 was
coming under acquisition of ORR; and that, therefore, the amended
draft notification under Section 4 (1) and draft declaration under
Section 6 of the Act were published in the newspapers on
17.07.2009 and 18.07.2009, respectively, in respect of lands to an
extent of Ac.0-33 guntas in Sy.No.16, an extent of Ac.1-03 guntas
in Sy.No.19 and an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.20 of
Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District;
that after conducting enquiry and after following the due
procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award vide
Proceedings No. L.A./Unit-I/02/2009, dated 30.04.2010, fixing the
market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.3,00,000/- per
acre.
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
7. The details of the compensation awarded to the claimants in
respect of the extents of land acquired by the Land Acquisition
Officer in each Survey number are enumerated as under:
Case No. Claimant's Sy. Extent of Land Compensation
LAOPNo name No. (Acs-gts) Awarded (Rs.)
Boda Madhava 19 00-28
50/2011 12,52,069/-
Reddy 20 01-00
J. Krishna 16 00-27
300/2013 6,06,895/-
Reddy 20 00-29
301/2013 A. Venkatesh 19 00-07 ½ 81,280/-
302/2013 A. Naveen 19 00.07 ½ 81,280/-
8. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the respective acqruied
lands sought references under Section 18 of the Act, seeking to
enhance the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.3,00,000/-
per acre to Rs.60,00,000/- 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.50 of 2011 and 300,
301 and 302 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court.
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
9. The Reference Court had clubbed all the Claim Petitions
(LAOPs) and recorded evidence in LAOP.No.50 of 2011. Before
the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 5 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the Land
Acquisition Officer, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1-
Award was marked.
10. PW1 is the claimant in LAOP No.50 of 2011, PWs.2 to 4
are one of the executants of Exs.A1 to A3, respectively and PW5 is
the attestor to Ex.A-5. Exs.A1 to A3 are the registered sale deeds.
Ex.A4 is the Topo sketch of the location of acquired lands. Ex.A5
is the registered agreement of sale, vide Document No.3943 of
2011, dated 08.12.2011. Exs.A6 to A10 are the Lok Adalat
Awards, dated 25.08.2009. RWs.1 and 2 are the Land Acquisition
Officers. Ex.B1 is the Award, vide Proc.No.LA./unit-I/02/2009,
dated 30.04.2010.
11. 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.3,00,000/- per acre to Rs.14,48,000/- per acre apart
from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
claimants. Challenging the aforesaid common judgment, the
present appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the
claimants as stated supra.
12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the claimants have not adduced any cogent
evidence, including placing on record the sale deeds that existed as
on the date of acquisition, in support of their claim for
enhancement of market value of the subject acquired lands; that the
Reference Court failed to see that the burden lies on the claimants
to establish their case for enhancing the compensation; that the
Reference Court abnormally enhanced the compensation for the
subject acquired lands carried away by assumptions and
presumptions.
13. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the lands
of the claimants in Raviryala Village are barren in nature and will
not fetch much value; that the sale transactions for three years prior
to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act do not
reflect the value which is fixed by the Reference Court; that the
Reference Court had erred in relying upon the Lok Adalat Awards,
dated 25.08.2009, which were marked as Exs.A6 to A10, wherein
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
the lands therein were notified on 25.03.2006, i.e., nearly three
years prior to the present notification; and that, therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court is improper and
contrary to Section 23 of the Act and accordingly, the impugned
common order is liable to be set aside.
14. Learned Standing Counsel, in support of her contentions
relied on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court
which are as follows:
a) Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer 1
b) Jaiprakash v. State of U.P. 2
c) Ravi Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. 3
d) Ram Kanwar v. State of Haryanaṣ 4
e) Anil Kumar Soti v. State of U.P. 5
f) Chandrashekar v. LAO 6
(1988) 3 SCC 751
(2020) 11 SCC 770
(2019) 15 SCC 301
(2020) 17 SCC 232
(2022) 2 SCC 268
(2012) 1 SCC 390
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
g) TSIIC v. Gonemoni Achamma & Ors., SLP(C) Nos.
2996-2997 of 2019 in W.A. Nos. 1013 & 1149 of 2018 in
W.P. No. 40989 of 2017.
15. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
claimants contended that the Reference Court ought to have
considered the sale transactions under Exs.A1 to A3-registered sale
deeds in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.192, 197 to 299 & 300 of
Raviryala Village, whereunder the lands forming part of the above
survey numbers were sold @ Rs.27,50,000/- per acre in the year
2008 and ought to have determined market value of the subject
acquired lands based on the sale transactions; that as per Ex.A4-
Topo sketch, the acquired lands are near to ORR and as such, they
fetch higher values than the value mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3; that
the acquired lands are situated adjacent to Hyderabad - Srisailam
Road and are nearer to FAB City; and that, therefore, keeping in
view the potentiality and strategic location of the subject acquired
lands, the Reference Court ought to have fixed the market value of
the acquired lands.
16. Learned senior counsel further contended that the
Reference Court ought to have considered Ex.A5-registered
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
agreement of sale, vide Document No.3943 of 2011, dated
08.12.2011, whereunder an extent of Acs.3-38 guntas of land in
Sy.No.18 of Raviryala Village was purchased by BSST India Pvt.
Ltd. from APIIC @ Rs. 70,00,000/- per acre and that the Reference
Court ought to have relied on the said post-notification document,
which is genuine, by deducting 10% value therefrom.
17. Learned senior counsel for the claimants has drawn the
attention of this Court to Ex.B1-Award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, whereunder at Sl.Nos.48 to 59, number of sale
transactions that took place in respect of the lands forming part of
Sy.No.117 and are nearer to the acquired lands have been
mentioned and the market value referred therein works out to
Rs.25,00,000/- per acre and accordingly, contended that the market
value of the subject acquired lands fixed by the Reference Court be
enhanced by allowing the Appeals filed by the claimants and
dismissing the Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
18. Apropos the above rival submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for both the parties, the points that arise for
consideration in this batch of Appeals are:-
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court for the subject acquired lands is
fair and reasonable; and
(ii) Whether the impugned common order needs any
interference by this Court, as contended by learned
counsel appearing for both the parties.
19. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is
pertinent to note that the lands acquired in the present batch of
cases are situated in Sy.Nos.16, 19 and 20, whereas the lands
covered under Exs.A-1 to A-3-sale deeds are forming part of
Sy.Nos.192, 197, 198, 200 and 300, which are situated at a distance
of 1.8 kms away from the subject acquired lands, and are not
similar in nature to that of the acquired lands. Therefore, in view of
the distance and the distinction in location and nature of the subject
acquired lands and the lands covered by Exs.A-1 to A-3, the said
documents, relied upon by the claimants, cannot be considered for
determination of the market value of the subject acquired lands and
are accordingly, discarded from consideration.
20. The claimants also relied on Ex.A5 - registered agreement
of sale, vide Doc.No.3943 of 2011, dated 08.12.2011, in support of
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
their claim for enhancement of market value of the subject acquired
lands. In the instant case, the draft notification was published in the
year 2009. Thus, Ex.A-5 falls in the ambit of post-notification and
as such, the same cannot be considered.
21. Further, the impugned order shows that the Reference
Court relied upon Exs.A6 to A10-Lok Adalat awards in Case
Nos.934 to 938 of 2009, dated 25.08.2009, wherein the
Government awarded Rs.14,48,000/- per acre as lumpsum to the
claimants for the lands forming part of Sy.Nos.16, 17, 19 and 20.
The Reference Court observed that since the Survey numbers
covered under Exs.A-6 to A-10-Lok Adalat awards and the survey
numbers in which the subject acquired lands are situated in the
present batch of cases are same and both are situated in same
village, the market value of the acquired lands cannot differ based
on the consent of the claimants because even the acquired lands are
situated adjacent to the FAB City project and within industrial belt
and number of industries have been established before the
notification of the lands. The Reference Court further observed that
the acquired lands are adjacent to ORR and Hyderabad - Srisailam
Road.
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
22. With regard to consideration of Consent Awards under
Exs.A-6 to A-10 for determination of market value of the subject
acquired lands, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha 7, wherein it
is held as under:-
" Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ext. P-
17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award
ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered
for the purpose of determining the compensation in
case of another acquisition. In case of a consent award,
one is required to consider the circumstances under
which the consent award was passed and the parties
agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate.
In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the
acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition
may agree to give a particular compensation.
Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to
award and/or determine the compensation in other
acquisition, more particularly, when there are other
evidences on record. Therefore, the High Court has
erred in determining the compensation @ Rs 40 lakhs
per acre relying upon the award -- Ext. P-17 in respect
of the land which was for the lands acquired in the year
2011."
7 (2022) 7 SCC 256
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
23. In the instant case, though the lands covered under Exs.A-6
to A-10-Lok Adalat Awards and the subject acquired lands are
situated in the same Survey numbers and same Village, the
claimants have not shown that the circumstances under which
Exs.A-6 to A-10-Lok Adalat Awards are passed are similar to the
present batch of cases.
24. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in N.Savitha's case (cited supra), in the instant case, it is to
be noted that Exs.A6 to A10-Lok Adalat Awards, which are passed
based on compromise and consent of the parties therein, are
Consent Awards and as such, the said Consent Awards cannot form
basis to determine market value of the present acquired lands as the
claimants failed to show that the circumstances under which the
said Awards are passed are akin to the present batch of cases.
25. It is imperative to note that in Ex.B-1-Award, the Land
Acquisition Officer had referred to the sale transaction, vide
Document No.8472 of 2006, dated 08.06.2006, which is executed
in respect of land admeasuring 282 guntas forming part of
Sy.Nos.116 and 117 (at Sl.No.14) and the sale consideration was
reflected as Rs.21,15,000/-, which works out to Rs.3,00,000/- per
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
acre. Further, it is also important to note that in Ex.B-1-Award, the
sale transactions pertaining to the year 2007 in respect of the lands
forming part of Sy.No.117 are mentioned at Sl.Nos.48 to 59,
whereunder the market value thereof works out to Rs.25,00,000/-
per acre. Further, it can be observed from Ex.A4 - Topo sketch that
the lands in Sy.No.117 are situated adjacent to the subject acquired
lands in Sy.Nos.16, 19 and 20 and therefore, it can be inferred that
both the lands fetch similar market value.
26. With regard to the sale transaction at Sl.No.14 in Ex.B-1-
Award, the Land Acquisition Officer observed that the said sale is
genuine; that the land covered under the said sale is also under
acquisition and coming under ORR alignment; and that the soil and
fertility and other physical features of the land covered under the
said sale deed are similar to the subject acquired lands and
accordingly, adopted the said sale deed for fixing the market value
of the subject acquired lands. This goes to show that the fertility,
soil and other physical features of the land in Sy.No.117 is similar
to the subject acquired lands.
27. In such a situation, the Land Acquisition Officer discarded
the sale transactions relating to Sy.No.117 for the year 2006,
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
mentioned at Sl.Nos.22 to 36; and for the year 2007, mentioned at
Sl.Nos.48 to 59 on the ground that the said transactions took place
for small extents of land. Admittedly, the sale transactions in
respect of lands in Sy.No.117 mentioned at Sl.Nos.22 to 36 and 47
to 59 of Ex.B.-1-Award took place for extents ranging from 4.5
guntas to 18 guntas, however, their genuineness is not in dispute.
28. Further, it is crucial to note that all the sale transactions of
agricultural lands of Raviryala Village referred to by the Land
Acquisition Officer in Ex.B-1-Award for the years 2007 and 2008,
whatever may be the extent and the distance from the subject
acquired lands, (which, as per the Land Acquisition Officer also, is
less than 1 km from the subject acquired lands), the sale
consideration reflected thereunder works out to not less than
Rs.25,00,000/- per acre and in some cases, even higher than the
said amount. This shows the demand and the market value of lands
in Raviryala Village where the subject lands were acquired and
further, shows that the market value of the lands in Raviryala
Village, in any event, is not less than Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. In
such a case, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the sale
transactions for the years 2007 and 2008 on the grounds, viz., some
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
transactions took place for small extents of land, some sales are
combined and mixed sales and hence, do not represent true market
value and the lands covered under some sales are situated at a
distance of ½ to 2 ½ kms from the subject acquired lands.
29. For the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraph, this
Court holds that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the
sale deed in respect of land in Sy.Nos.116 and 117, which is a
combined and mixed sale for the year 2006 and adopted the same
for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands. However,
he proceeded to discard all the sale transactions of Raviryala
Village for the years 2007 and 2008, which includes the sale deeds
in respect of lands in Sy.No.117 and the said approach of the Land
Acquisition Officer, in the opinion of this Court, is not proper and
justifiable.
30. In order to determine the fair and reasonable market value
of the subject acquired lands, it is apt and desirable to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust
v. State of Punjab 8, wherein it is held that it is the general rule that
the highest of the exemplars has to be considered and accepted,
8 (2012) 5 SCC 432
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, if
it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction. For better
appreciation, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted
as under:
" It is clear that when there are several exemplars with
reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the
highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona
fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar
land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona
fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser
and a willing seller near about the time of the
acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that
where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are
relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction
representing the highest value should be preferred to the
rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a
different course. It is not desirable to take an average of
various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for
fixing fair compensation."
31. In Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamalamma9, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in absence of comparable sales of large
(1998)2 SCC 385
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
chunk of land, comparable sales of smaller extent can be taken note
of by making appropriate deductions.
32. In the instant case, except the sale deed referred to at
Sl.No.14, all the sale transactions comparable to the subject
acquired lands are in respect of small extents of land. Therefore,
except the solitary sale deed at Sl.No.14, which is a combined and
mixed sale, there are no sale deeds in respect of large chunks of
land to determine the market value of the subject acquired lands.
33. In view of the above settled legal position of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and for the reasons mentioned above, in the present
case, the sale transactions pertaining to the year 2007 in respect of
the lands forming part of Sy.No.117, which are mentioned at
Sl.Nos.48 to 59 of the statement of the sale statistics for
agricultural lands situated at Raviryala Village, annexed to Ex.B-1-
Award, whereunder the market value reflected thereunder works
out to Rs.25,00,000/- per acre, can be considered for fixing the
market value of the subject acquired lands. However, keeping in
view the sale transactions shown at Sl.Nos.48 to 59 which are in
respect of smaller extents of land, it is desirable to make
appropriate deduction @ 20% while fixing the market value of the
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
subject acquired lands based on the said sale deeds, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamalamma's case (cited supra).
34. Further, in this batch of cases, since there is a time gap of
more than one year, i.e., one year and four months, between the
dates of the sale deeds referred to above pertaining to the year
2007, which are taken as exemplar sale deeds, and the issuance of
4(1) notification, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the
said period, the claimants are entitled to escalation @ 10%,
following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramrao
Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation10 and Pehlad Ram & Ors. v. Haryana Urban
Development Authority & Ors.11, wherein it was reiterated that a
cumulative increase of 10% to 15% per year in the market value of
the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring
authority prove otherwise.
35. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as
discussed hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that in the
aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are relied
upon by the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, the facts of the
10 (2022) 7 SCC 563
11 (2014) 14 SCC 778
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
cases therein are completely distinguishable to that of the present
batch of cases and as such, the principles laid down in the said
judgments are not relevant and applicable to the batch of cases on
hand.
36. In view of the above, this Court holds that the Reference
Court has lost sight of the aforesaid facts and failed to appreciate
the material available on record from a proper perspective and
fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands on a very
lower side, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not
just and reasonable in the light of their potentiality, location and
other allied factors, as mentioned hereinabove.
37. In the light of the foregoing discussion and reasons, if 20%
is deducted from Rs.25,00,000/-, it works out to Rs.20,00,000/- and
further, by adding 10% escalation for the said amount, the market
value of the subject acquired lands is fixed @ Rs.22,00,000/- per
acre. The claimants are also entitled to additional market value @
12% per annum, 30% solatium and interest under Section 28 of the
Act on the enhanced market value from the date of notification till
the date of Award, dated 30.04.2010, apart from all other statutory
benefits under the Act.
AKS, J & LNA, J
and batch
38. Accordingly, LAAS.Nos.6, 9, 11 and 80 of 2018 filed by
the Land Acquisition Officer are dismissed and LAAS.Nos.617,
618, 619 and 620 of 2017 filed by the claimants are allowed in part
to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, no
costs.
39. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if, any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:24.10.2024
dr
