Telangana High Court
The Land Acquisition Offficer vs Mereddy Laxma Reddy on 10 September, 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.297 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for
the 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-
cum-Tahsildar, Nalgonda District, aggrieved by the order and
decree dated 29.06.2015 passed in O.P.No.40 of 2010 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Reference Court').
3. The brief facts of the case are that lands admeasuring
Acs.4.25 guntas, i.e., an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.124
and an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.125, situated in the limits
of Anumula Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, belonging to
the respondent-claimant were acquired for the purpose of providing
house sites to weaker sections of Anumula Village; that draft
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P.
2 AKS,J & LNA, J
Gazette on 20.05.1983; and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after
conducting necessary award enquiry, passed an Award, dated
01.09.1984, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @
Rs.3,900/- per acre.
4. The 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 accordingly referred to the
Reference Court and numbered as O.P.No.40 of 2010.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the
respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to
A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was
examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked.
6. On appreciation of the material available on record, the
Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands
to Rs.60,000/- per acre from Rs.3,900/- per acre, apart from
granting other benefits under the Act to the respondent/ claimant.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Reference
Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
appellant contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of
3 AKS,J & LNA, J
the fact that Ex.A-2-Judgment, dated 27.11.2006, passed by this
Court in A.S.No.1065 of 2003, relates to the lands acquired in
Halia, whereas, the subject acquired lands are situated in Anumula
Village and as such, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the
compensation based on Ex.A-2 and therefore, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
claimant contended that the Reference Court on perusing Ex.A-2
came to a conclusion that the subject acquired lands and the lands
covered under Ex.A-2 are nearer to each other and the purpose of
acquisition is also similar in both the cases and therefore, the
Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.A-2 and fixed fair and
reasonable compensation, which does not warrant any interference
by this Court.
10. At the outset, it is evident that Exs.A-4 to A-8 are all the sale
deeds pertaining to Nidamanoor Village and they were marked as
exhibits in O.P.No.46 of 1993 on the file of the Reference Court. In
the instant case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published on 20.05.1983. The respondent-claimant placed reliance
on the sale deeds under Exs.A-4 to A-8 which relate to post-
4 AKS,J & LNA, J
notification, i.e., Exs.A-4 and A-6 are executed in the month of
June, 1983 and Exs.A-5, 7 and 8 are executed in the month of July,
1983. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into the said
aspect as the same were already considered by the Reference
Court, vide Ex.A-1 and further, on appeal, considered by the High
Court, vide Ex.A-2.
11. Ex.A-3-common judgment rendered by this Court in
A.S.Nos.2687 and 3716 of 2000, dated 12.09.2013, is with regard
to fixation of market value of the acquired lands therein situated at
Anumula Village pursuant to draft notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act published on 10.02.1992, whereas in the instant case, the
draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on
20.05.1983. Therefore, in view of long time gap of more than eight
years, Ex.A-3 cannot be considered for assessing the market value
of the subject acquired lands.
12. Now, the only point that falls for consideration is as to
whether Ex.A-2-judgment of the High Court rendered in
AS.No.1065 of 2003, dated 27.11.2006, is squarely applicable to
the instant case, as contended by the respondent-claimant.
5 AKS,J & LNA, J
13. The case of the respondent-claimant is that the acquired
lands are originally agricultural lands and localized under
Nagarjuna Sager Project Ayacut; that the acquired lands are located
in Anumula Mandal Headquarters on the road side which is leading
from Halia to Devarakonda and as such, they have high
potentiality. Even R.W-1 admitted in his evidence that the acquired
lands are situated in Anumula Headquarters coming under
Nagarjuna Sagar Project ayacut. Thus, the respondent-claimant
succeeded in establishing the location of the acquired lands on the
road side, which obviously have commercial importance and
fetches higher market value.
14. R.W-1 in his evidence admitted that the land covered
under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the subject acquired lands were
acquired for the same purpose i.e., for providing house sites to the
weaker sections.
15. In the impugned order, the Reference Court, on perusal of
Ex.A-2, observed that the acquired lands covered under Exs.A-1
and A-2 and the subject acquired lands are nearer to each other and
were acquired for similar purpose. In other words, the respondent-
claimant was able to establish that the acquired lands are situated
6 AKS,J & LNA, J
within the vicinity of the lands covered under Ex.A-2 and the
purpose of acquisition is also the same.
16. Further, in the judgment passed in AS.No.1065 of 2003
(Ex.A-2), it is recorded that the learned Government Pleader
admitted that the subject lands therein are situated in Halia Village,
which is a Hamlet of Anumula Mandal and this Court, after
considering the evidence and other material available on record,
has confirmed the impugned order therein passed by the Reference
Court fixing the compensation for the subject acquired lands
therein @ Rs.60,000/- per acre. It is to be noted that Halia, a
remote village, is said to be a Hamlet of Anumula Mandal and the
draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the
said case and in the instant case are of the same year, i.e., 1983 and
the purpose of acquisition is similar in both the cases, i.e., for
providing house sites to the weaker sections. Further, the subject
lands are situated at Anumula Mandal Headquarters, therefore, they
will definitely fetcher higher value than the lands situated at Halia
Village, and in any event, not lesser. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the market value of the acquired lands fixed by the
Reference Court in the impugned order, basing on Ex.A-2, is
7 AKS,J & LNA, J
justifiable and cannot be said to be on higher side. Further, it is
represented that Ex.A-2 attained finality as the same remained
unchallenged.
17. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the market value of the acquired lands fixed by this Court
under Ex.A-2 can be safely adopted for fixing the market value of
the subject acquired lands.
18. Further, it is appropriate to mention that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of
Jammu and Kashmir 1 and Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and
another2, held that when the nature/quality and purpose of
acquisition of the subject acquired lands are similar and identical to
the lands acquired in the adjacent village, it would not be justifiable
or rather it is unfair to discriminate in granting distinct
compensation for the acquired lands, can be squarely applied to the
instant case.
19. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and for the reasons stated in the above paragraphs,
this Court is of the considered opinion that to maintain uniformity
2017(4)SCC 717
2010(5)SCC 747
8 AKS,J & LNA, J
in fixation of the market value and to avoid discrimination, the
Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation for the
subject acquired lands as that of the compensation granted for
similar and identical lands covered under Ex.A-2 and therefore, the
Reference Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in
passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
20. For the reasons assigned in the foregoing paragraphs, this
Court holds that this Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
21. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
22. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated: 10.09.2024
dr
