Telangana High Court
Ap Genco, Warangal Dist vs Malka Papa Rao, Karimngar Dist And 28 ... on 11 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.354 of 2015
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 A.P.Genco Vidyut
Soudha, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Engineer (O&M), Kakatiya
Thermal Power Project, Chelpur Village, Warangal District,
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed in
O.P.No.37 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Manthani
(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 belonging to
the claimants situated at Kapuram Village, Malhar Mandal of
Karimnagar District was acquired by the AP Genco for extraction of
coal for power generation. The draft notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act was published on 13.06.2008. After conducting due
enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,85,714/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the
claimants have made an application and the same was referred
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at
Manthani.
4. The Reference Court has framed the following points for
consideration:
"1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer has granted
reasonable, and adequate compensation to the
acquired lands or not?
2. Whether claimants are entitled for
redetermination of compensation of market value
of the lands?
3. To what relief?"
5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined
PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the
respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were
marked.
6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has
awarded a compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre along with the
statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the
A.P.Genco, has preferred the present appeal.
7. Heard the submissions of Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 18 and 20 to 27.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the
compensation to Rs.5 Lakhs per acre and that the reference Court
has erred in not considering the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer in proper perspective and that the reference
Court has failed in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
properly. He further argued that in respect of other lands acquired
in pursuance of the same notification compensation of
Rs.3,80,000/- was paid per acre but the reference Court failed to
appreciate the said fact and has awarded an excess amount of Rs.5
Lakhs in this case. He further argued that Exs.A2 to A4 cannot be
taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired
lands. He further argued that the total land that was acquired in
the present notification is Ac.227-35 ½ gts., out of which
Ac.186.31 guntas were the patta lands while the remaining was
government land and that negotiations were held with the land
owners by a Committee and that the farmers agreed for
Rs.3,80,000/- per acre. He therefore submitted that the order and
decree of the reference Court cannot be sustained and thus, have
to be set aside.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
submitted that the reference Court has considered all the aspects
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
and has fairly granted the compensation to the claimants and that
there is no need to interfere with the same.
10. 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?
11. POINT NO.1:
a) PW1 is the claimant No.2. In his evidence, it is revealed that
the acquired lands are suitable for construction of houses and that
they used to fetch annual income of Rs.60,000/- per acre prior to
acquisition by raising commercial crops and that the sale deeds
under Exs.A1 to A4 reflect the market value of the acquired lands.
PW1 further deposed that the lands have a potential to be sold
@Rs.60,000/- per gunta for house sites. PW2 also deposed on
similar lines. Nothing much could be elicited in their cross
examinations to discredit their evidence.
b) PW3 is the claimant No.12 who is a resident of Thadicherla
village and his wife is the vendor under Ex.A2. His evidence
reveals that his wife sold away Ac.0-02 ½ guntas to one Raja
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
Pochaiah for the purpose of house site in survey No.742 for a
consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-.
c) PW4 is another resident of Thadicherla village and his wife is
the vendee in Ex.A4. His evidence reveals that they have
purchased 242 Square yards equivalent to Ac.0.02 guntas in
survey No.577/A for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, which
comes to a total of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. He further deposed
that the acquired lands are abutting the village of Thadicherla. In
his cross examination, it is elicited that the distance between
Thadicherla and Kapuram village is just 2 KM.
d) PW5 is a retired agricultural officer and he submitted a
report under Ex.A5, after inspecting the lands at Kapuram village
that were proposed to be acquired. The said report/Ex.A5 is
accepted by RW1.
e) PW6 is the consultant Geologist, at the request of claimant
No.1, he inspected the acquired lands and submitted a report
under Ex.A6. RW3 admitted Ex.A6 to be genuine.
f) RW1 is the Executive Engineer of A.P.Genco. In his cross
examination, he has admitted that the rate fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer is based on sale statistics available in the basic
value register and they relied upon the said value fixed by the Land
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
Acquisition Officer and that they have not taken into consideration
the sale item No.76 which portrayed a value of Rs.5,72,000/- per
acre and the reason stated by him is that since it is a meager
extent, they have not considered. He further admitted that if
capitalization method is adopted, the market value of the lands per
acre would range from Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-, subject to
50% reasonable deduction by the Land Acquisition Officer. He
admitted that the net income derived from the extraction of coal
after deducting all the expenses by the company is coming to a net
amount of Rs.1 Crore per acre.
g) RW2 is the Assistant Engineer. He too admitted the facts in
similar fashion to that of RW1. RW3 is the Revenue Divisional
Officer who was the Land Acquisition Officer in the present case.
In his cross examination he has admitted that subject lands are
wet in nature and that they are very fertile for cultivation, being
irrigated by the lift irrigation of Manair river and also that the
recorded sales are of more value than that fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer i.e., Rs.5,72,000/- per acre and that the same
was discarded as it was a small extent. He further admitted the
genuineness of Ex.A6 showing the coal potentiality in the subject
lands.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
h) 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.
i) 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".
j) 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".
k) Considering the evidence on record, it is opined that the
value of the acquired lands is far more higher than what is fixed by
the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the same needs to be
enhanced. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385
(2011) 6 SCC 47
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.354_2015
12. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this
Court holds that the reference Court has awarded a just
compensation and hence, the order and decree of the reference
Court do not need any interference.
13. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order
and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed in O.P.No.37 of 2013 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge at Manthani. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 11.04.2025
ns
