Telangana High Court
Land Acquisition Officer And Special Dy vs Mohd. Abdul Jabber on 4 April, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
L.A.A.S.No.10 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the Land Acquisition
Officer, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
01.06.2016 passed in L.A.O.P.No.598 of 2015 by the learned II
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court').
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Government has
acquired the land to an extent of 1342 square yards in survey
Nos.11 to 17, 23 and 24 of Mahankali village, Maheshwaram
Mandal for formation of outer ring road. The notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25.03.2006.
After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has
awarded Rs.350/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said award,
the claimant has filed a petition for reference and the same was
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.10_2018
referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of II Additional
District Judge at L.B.Nagar.
4. The case of the claimant before the reference Court is that he
is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in survey Nos.11
to 17, 23 and 24 admeasuring Ac.0-17 guntas i.e. 2057 square
yards, situated at Mahankali Village, Maheshwaram Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District and that the Government has acquired the
entire land but the award was passed for 1,342 square yards by
fixing a market value @ Rs.350/- per square yard which is very
low.
5. The Reference Court has framed the following points for
consideration:
"1. Whether the market value fixed @ Rs.350/- per
square yards is in accordance with law or it is liable to
be set aside?
2. If the market value as fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer is not correct, what is the
reasonable market value and what are the benefits
claimant is entitled to?"
6. Before the Reference Court, the claimant got examined PW1
and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent, RW1
was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.10_2018
7. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has
awarded a compensation of Rs.2,000/- per square yard to an
extent of 1342 square yards, in addition to the statutory benefits.
Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer,
Hyderabad, has preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard Smt.D.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
reference Court has granted exorbitant amounts towards
compensation. She further submitted that the Land Acquisition
Officer has fixed a reasonable compensation and that the reference
Court ought not to have interfered with the same and that the
additional market value of 12% per annum also is erroneously
awarded and he further submitted that the exhibits filed by the
claimant should not have been relied upon by the reference Court
as they reflect exaggerated figure, therefore, he prayed to set aside
the judgment and decree passed by the reference Court by allowing
this appeal.
10. The learned respondent counsel has submitted that the
reference Court has rightly considered the material available on
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.10_2018
record and has granted compensation to the claimant and that
there is no need to interfere with the said award.
11. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the claimant is not entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the judgment and decree of the reference
Court need any interference?
3. To what relief?
12. POINT NO.1:
a) The case of PW1 is that his land is situated at Mahankali
village, Maheshwaram Mandal, which is in a phase of fast
development with all facilities like transport, electricity and that it
is surrounded by commercial and residential premises and that it
is nearby to the Srisailam road and international airport. He relied
upon Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale without
possession and it is dated 01.12.2005 executed between one
A.V.Balakrishna Reddy and M/s.SMV Agencies Private Limited,
wherein Ac.09-00 guntas of land was sold @ Rs.1 Crore per acre.
Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.01.2006,
wherein the land in survey Nos.319, 320 and 321 of Mahankali
Revenue Village, Thukuguda village Grampanchayath,
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.10_2018
Maheshwaram Mandal was sold @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard.
Ex.A3 is another sale deed dated 21.01.2006 wherein the land was
sold @Rs.1,500/- per square yard. Ex.A4 is an agreement of sale -
cum - GPA executed by Chintala Krishnaiah in favour of
K.Prabhakar Reddy in respect of the land in Mahankali village @
Rs.1500/- per square yard. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of
judgment in a batch of LAOP Nos.193, 194 and 195 of 2011,
wherein the reference Court has awarded Rs.2,000/- per square
yard. In the said cases, the acquisition of the land was for outer
ring road in survey Nos.11 to 17, 23 and 24 of Mahankali village,
Maheshwaram Mandal.
b) The evidence of RW1 discloses that she is not the officer who
has passed the award and that she does not have any knowledge
about the acquired land.
c) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the reference court ought not to have relied on the said
statement of RW1. Even brushing aside the evidence of RW1, the
evidence on record discloses that similar lands were acquired in
Mahankali village of Maheshwaram Mandal for the purpose of
outer ring road, wherein the reference Court has awarded
Rs.2,000/- per square yard. There is no other rebuttal evidence
placed by the respondent before the reference Court stating that
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.10_2018
appeal if any was preferred against the said award. Thus, taking
into consideration of the said orders of enhancement of market
value to Rs.2,000/- per square yard, the reference Court has
granted a similar amount in this case also, which appears to be
justified. It is not in dispute that several lands were acquired for
the purpose of outer ring road. In the said cases mentioned supra,
the land was acquired for the similar purpose and the reference
Court has awarded Rs.2,000/- per square yard and in the present
case also, the land of the claimant was acquired for ring road in
survey Nos.11 to 17, 23 and 24 situated in Mahankali village,
Maheshwaram Mandal. Therefore, the judgment of the reference
Court is well reasoned. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this
Court holds that the judgment and decree of the reference Court do
not need any interference.
14. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the
judgment and decree dated 01.06.2016 passed in L.A.O.P.No.598
of 2015 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar. No costs.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.10_2018
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 04.04.2025
ns
