Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy ... vs Bhukya Bhavusingh And 2 Others on 21 April, 2025
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.34 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri J.Vekateshwara
Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition Officer, Warangal, aggrieved by the order and
decree dated 07.04.2017 passed in O.P.No.10 of 2017 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to as
"the Reference Court').
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made
by the Executive Engineer-I, SRSP, Stages-I & II, Division-3,
Thorrur, the subject lands totally admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas in
Sy.Nos.471, 474, 41 and 131 situated in the limits of Veeraram
Village of Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District, were acquired
for excavation of 14L of DBM-60 from KM 0.000 to 7.225 on KC
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
under SRSP, Stage-II; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 04.08.2006; that Draft
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P.
Gazette on 05.08.2006; that after following the procedure
prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land
Acquisition Officer passed Award No.E/230/06, dated 13.08.2009,
granting compensation @ Rs.50/- per square yard for ID lands and
@ Rs.9/- per square yard for dry lands.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/claimants sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as O.P.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondents/
claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined
and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, treated both categories of acquired land, i.e., ID and dry
lands, as one category and enhanced the compensation granted by
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.330/- per square yard for both
categories of land. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is
filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference
Court erred in granting compensation for the acquired lands on
yardage basis instead of on acreage basis; that the Reference Court
erred in treating both the ID and dry lands as one category and
fixing the same compensation for both types of lands; that the
Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired
lands based on Ex.P-7-sale deed and further giving escalation
@ 10% per annum and ultimately, fixing the market value of the
acquired lands @ Rs.330/- per square yard, which is highly
exorbitant and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence available on record and on finding that the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer does not commensurate
to the potentiality of the subject acquired lands, and by taking into
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
consideration the sale transaction under Ex.A-7 and rightly giving
escalation @ 10% per annum for one year, the Reference Court
enhanced the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, the
impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions
made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire
material available on record.
10. In support of their claim for enhancement of market value of
the acquired lands fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the
claimants have got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 before the Reference
Court. The Reference Court on consideration of the said exhibits
has observed that the highest and lowest value reflected in Exs.P-1
to P-4 and P-6 are Rs.2,200/- and Rs.355/- per square yard,
respectively, and the average of the two values comes to Rs.1,275/-
per square yard. However, the Reference Court has further
observed that since the claimants have relied upon Ex.P-7-Award,
whereunder in respect of lands acquired in Maripeda Village for
excavation of SRSP Canal, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed
Rs.550/- and Rs.500/- per square yard for Category-I & II lands,
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
respectively, the same was taken into consideration and after
making necessary deductions and escalation to the said market
value, fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands @
Rs.330/- per square yard.
11. Now, in the present Appeal, in the light of the evidence
adduced before the Reference Court and the submissions made by
learned counsel for both the parties, the main issue that falls for
consideration of this Court is whether the Reference Court has
fixed fair and reasonable market value for the acquired lands.
12. Admittedly, Ex.P-7 is the Award, dated 28.02.2006, passed
by the Land Acquisition Officer is in respect of lands acquired in
Maripeda Village and further, the purpose of acquisition of lands in
the present case and the lands covered under Ex.P-7 is one and the
same i.e., for excavation of SRSP Canal DBM-60. Furthermore,
admittedly, Veeraram Village, where the subject acquired lands are
situated, is in Maripeda Mandal and that Veeraram Village is at a
distance of about one kilometer away from Maripeda Mandal, as
stated by P.W-2 in his cross-examination.
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
13. In addition to the above, it is also apt to note that while
referring to sale deeds of the relevant period of three years prior to
the date of 4(1) Notification, for the purpose of assessing and
fixing the market value of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition
Officer has categorically stated that as no reasonable and
considerable sale transactions pertaining to Veeraram Village are
available, he has ascertained and referred to as many as 108 sale
transactions of Maripeda Village.
14. Therefore, from the above, without any hesitation the
market value of the acquired lands at Maripeda as reflected in
Ex.P-7-Award can be taken as guiding factor for assessing the
market value of the subject acquired lands at Veeraram Village.
15. Though the Reference Court has taken into consideration
Ex.P-7-Award, it has deducted 30% of the market value reflected
therein towards developmental charges, on the ground that the
subject acquired lands are agricultural lands and the lands covered
under Ex.P-7-Award are house sites. In fact, this observation of the
Reference Court is contrary to the evidence on record. R.W-1 who
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
was examined on behalf of the Referring Officer has categorically
admitted as follows:-
"It is true that since the lands acquired pertaining to the
awardees were house sites, the Land Acquisition Officer
has awarded compensation on yard basis at the rate of
Rs.50/- per square yard."
16. Further, R.W-1 has categorically admitted as follows:-
"The land covering Sy.No.471 and 474 were given
compensation on yard basis and the land covering
Sy.No.41 and 131 were awarded on gunta basis. It is
true that the lands covering all the survey numbers
mentioned above are adjacent to each other."
17. In view of the above categorical admissions of R.W-1, it is
clear that the acquired lands in all the Survey numbers are house
sites and are adjacent to each other.
18. Hence, on the analogy of purpose of acquisition and the
nature of lands between the subject acquired lands and the acquired
lands covered under Ex.P-7-Award, the claimants are entitled for
compensation on par with the market value reflected in Ex.P-7-
Award. But, the Reference Court has committed grave error in
observing that the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands and
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
accordingly, it also went wrong in deducting 30% of market value
reflected in Ex.P-7-Award for fixing the market value of the
subject acquired lands.
19. Further, in the case on hand, Draft Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on
04.08.2006. Ex.P-7-Award is dated 28.02.2006. Thus, it is clear
that the notification in the present case was issued hardly six
months after Ex.P-7-Award. In the light of the said fact, the
escalation of 10% given by the Reference Court by observing that
there is time gap of one year from the date of Award-Ex.P-7 and
the date of 4(1) notification in the present case, is contrary to
record and is thus not sustainable.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the
Reference Court failed to consider the evidence placed before it in
proper perspective and thus, erroneously assessed and fixed the
market value of the acquired lands.
21. Therefore, the market value of the subject acquired lands
needs to be re-assessed. It is apposite to refer to the judgments of
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
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 another 2, wherein it is 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.
22. In the present case, it is relevant to note that the lands
covered under Ex.P-7-Award and the subject acquired lands are
acquired for the same purpose, i.e., excavation of canal under
SRSP, and further, Ex.P-7-Award was passed for the lands
acquired in Maripeda Mandal and the subject acquired lands in
Veeraram Village are, in fact, in Maripeda Mandal. Therefore, the
aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali
Mohammad Beigh (cited supra) and Bal Ram (cited supra) are
squarely applicable to the present case.
23. However, it is to be noted that the lands covered under
Ex.P-7-Award are situated in Maripeda Mandal Head quarters and
2017(4)SCC 717
2010 (5) SCC 747
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
the subject acquired lands are situated in Villages, that too, at a
distance of about one kilometer from Maripeda Mandal Head
Quarters, therefore, the potentiality and consequently, the market
value of the house sites situated in both the cases differs and in any
event, the market value of house sites situated in Villages will be
lesser than the market value of house sites situated at Mandal Head
quarters. Therefore, it is appropriate to deduct 20% of Rs.500/-,
i.e., the value reflected in Ex.P-7-Award, which comes to Rs.400/-
per square yard.
24. This Court does not lost sight of the fact that the present
Appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the
enhancement made by the Reference Court, therefore, though the
market value of the subject acquired lands is assessed @ Rs.400/-
per square yard, the claimants are not entitled to any
relief/enhancement in the Appeal.
25. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this Appeal is
dismissed.
11 AKS, J & LNA, J
26. As a sequel, interim order dated 15.03.2018 in I.A.No.1 of
2018 stands vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:21.04.2025
dr
