Telangana High Court
Civil Judge At Miryalguda (Hereinafter ... vs S.Venkateswarlu And 11 Others 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
APPEAL SUIT No.558 of 2004
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, Miryalguda, aggrieved by the order and decree dated
21.03.2002 passed in O.P.No.116 of 2000 by the learned Senior
Civil Judge at Miryalguda (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 land to an extent of
Ac.05-09 guntas in survey No.425 of Huzurnagar village was
acquired for providing house sites to the poor inhabitants of
Madirenigudem H/o.Huzurnagar village. The draft notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on
10.03.1993. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition
Officer has awarded Rs.28,200/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said
award, the claimants have made an application and the same was
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS No.558_2004
referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil
Judge, Miryalguda.
4. The case of the claimants is that there are 50 rice mills, oil
mills, dal mills, stone crushing mills and several cement factories
in the vicinity of acquired lands and that the Land Acquisition
Officer failed to take into account all these factors while fixing the
market value and has awarded a meager amount.
5. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed a counter before the
reference Court denying the averments of the claimants and stated
that after due enquiry he has awarded the said amount which is
reasonable and that the claim needs to be rejected.
6. The Reference Court has framed the following points for
consideration:
"1. Whether the market value awarded by the L.A.O.
in the award under reference represents the correct
market value of the land as on the date of 4(1)
notification?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to seek
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Lao? If so, to what rate?"
7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs
1 & 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondent,
Ex.C1 was marked.
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS No.558_2004
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has
awarded a compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre, in addition to the
statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land
Acquisition Officer, has preferred the present appeal.
9. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and
Sri M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the
reference Court has enhanced the compensation which is contrary
to law and that the exhibits filed by the claimants cannot be relied
upon and that the said house plots covered under the documents
are in Huzurnagar town, hence, the same cannot be considered.
He further argued that except these documents, the claimants
failed to place any other evidence on record, and that the reference
Court has erred in enhancing the compensation. He further
argued that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered 543 sale
transactions and fixed the market value, hence, the appeal may be
allowed.
11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has
submitted that the reference Court has passed a well reasoned
order and that there is no need to interfere with the same, he
therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS No.558_2004
12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the reference
Court need any interference?
3. To what relief?
13. POINT NO.1:
a) PW1 has reiterated the contents of his claim petition before
the reference Court in his evidence. The evidence of PW2 reveals
that he had five acres of land in survey No.292 and 301 of
Huzurnagar village, which is very near to the acquired lands and
that he prepared a layout and converted it into house plots along
with his brothers and that all the plots were sold @ Rs.60/- to
Rs.70/- per square yard. Exs.A1, A5, A7 and A8 are the sale deeds
which were executed by his brothers and himself in favour of the
purchasers under the said layout. Nothing material could be
elicited during their cross examination to discredit their evidence.
The sale deed filed under Exs.A7 and A8 also appear in the sales
statistics at Sl.Nos.441 and 454 wherein the land was sold at
Rs.2,90,400/- per acre.
b) It is elicited from the sales statistics referred by the Land
Acquisition Officer in his award that at Sl.Nos.24 to 27, 31 and 32,
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS No.558_2004
the lands in survey No.195 were sold in the year 1990
@Rs.7,64,720/- per acre, which pertain to dry lands; at Sl.No.115
it discloses that the dry land in survey No.190/AA was sold @
Rs.12,10,000/- per acre in the year 1990; at Sl.Nos.120 and 164,
the sale price was Rs.12,10,000/- per acre in survey No.196/A and
190 in the year 1991; at Sl.Nos.204 and 218 in survey No.196/E
the sale price is shown as Rs.12,17,806/- and Rs.12,10,100/- in
the year 1991. There are several other sales transactions at
Sl.Nos.318 and 319 revealing the said figures. In the year 1993
also there is one sales transaction at Sl.No.503 revealing that the
land in survey No.196/U the sale price is shown Rs.12,10,000/-.
Thus, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer has not
considered the said sale transactions which are reflected in his
award. The reason stated by the Land Acquisition Officer for
discarding the said sales transaction is that the lands covered by
these sales are small extents and thus, he has discarded the same.
c) It is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer
v. L.Kamalamma 1 and Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal 2.
(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385
(2011) 6 SCC 47
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS No.558_2004
d) In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer's
case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"6. ...when no sales of comparable land were available where large
chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of
smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the
price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making
appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by
providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses
involved in information of a layout, lump sum payment as also the
waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed".
e) In Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal's case (supra 2),
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for
determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some
deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization,
amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such
principles each case would have to be considered on its own
merits".
f) Thus, in the light of the said decisions, the reason for
discarding the highest sale exemplar by Land Acquisition Officer is
not proper.
g) It is clear from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the land has
good potentiality and that it is surrounded by the industrial and
commercial establishments, several rice mills and oil mills and also
that the land was being sold on yardage basis in the said village.
Therefore, it is held that the compensation granted by the Land
Acquisition Officer is meager and thus, enhancement made by the
reference Court @ Rs.50,000/- per acre is well justified. Point No.1
is answered accordingly.
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS No.558_2004
14. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this
Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not
need any interference.
15. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order
and decree dated 21.03.2002 passed in O.P.No.116 of 2000 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 4.04.2025
ns
