Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs Padamatinti Mahesh 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.Nos.371 of 2014 & 381 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both the Appeals arise out of the same judgment and
similar issues fall for consideration, they are heard together and are
being disposed of by common judgment.
2. LAAS.No.371 of 2014, under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act'), is filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Senior
Civil Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference
Court') vide order dated 21.04.2014 passed in LAOP.No.37 of
2013.
3. LAAS.No.381 of 2016, under Section 54 of the Act is filed
by the Land Acquisition Officer seeking to set aside the order dated
21.04.2014 passed by the Reference Court in LAOP.No.37 of 2013
and to confirm the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
4. Heard Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the
claimant, and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing
for the Land Acquisition Officer.
5. In brief, the facts of the case are that lands totally
admeasuring Acs.2.37 guntas, i.e., Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.429,
Ac.1.01 ½ guntas in Sy.No.459 and Ac.0.25 ½ guntas in
Sy.No.460 situated in Nallagonda Village, Thimmapur Mandal,
Karimnagar District, along with trees therein, belonging to the
claimant, were acquired for the purpose of construction of pipeline
under Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Sujala Sravanthi project
(Godavari) at Nallagonda Village; that Draft Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on
18.06.2010; that Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
published in A.P. Gazette on 19.06.2010; and that after following
the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting
enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, vide
Proc.No.A/2670/2009, dated 30.05.2011, fixing the market value
of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,17,000/- per acre.
3 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
6. 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 referred to the competent
civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.37 of 2013 on the file of the
Reference Court.
7. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimant,
P.Ws-1 and P.W-2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were
marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined
and Ex.R-1-Award was marked.
8. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, by the impugned order
enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands from
Rs.1,17,000/- per acre to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre apart from
granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimant.
Challenging the said order, the present appeals are filed.
9. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court
grossly erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
adduced before it from a proper perspective; that the Reference
4 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
Court erred in enhancing the compensation based on Exs.P-1 to
P-4, which relate to small bits of land; that the Reference Court
failed to consider that the Land Acquisition Officer, on
examination of as many as 165 sale deeds pertaining to the relevant
period of three years prior to 4(1) notification, has rightly fixed the
market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,17,000/- per acre, which
is reasonable; and therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the
impugned order of the Reference Court by confirming the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant submitted that the
Reference Court has held Exs.P-1 to P-4-sale deeds to be genuine
and having taken Ex.P-4-sale deed dated 17.02.2010 as exemplar
sale deed, observed that 33.33 ½ % of the value reflected in Ex.P-4
is to be deducted for fixation of market value of the acquired land.
Learned counsel further submitted that if the market value of the
acquired land is fixed as per the above basis, after deducting i.e.,
33.33 % of Rs.6,34,040/- towards development charges, the market
value ought to have been determined @ Rs.4,22,904/- per acre,
however, the Reference Court committed error in computing and
5 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
fixing the market value of the acquired land and thereby, erred in
fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,00,000/- per
acre. By contending thus, learned counsel prayed to enhance the
market value of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court.
11. Before the Reference Court, the claimant to substantiate his
claim for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land has
got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4-sale deeds, dated 14.12.2007,
16.01.2008, 28.07.2008 and 17.02.2010, respectively, executed in
respect of lands in Nallagonda Village. In the present case, 4(1)
notification was published on 18.06.2010, therefore, Exs.P-1 to
P-4-sale deeds which were executed prior to issuance of 4(1)
notification can be considered. The genuineness of Exs.P-1 to P-4
remained unrebutted by the Land Acquisition Officer, as observed
by the Reference Court. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that land
admeasuring 208.33 square yards covered under Ex.P-4-sale deed
is situated in Sy.No.460, in which admittedly the acquired land is
also situated. In addition to that, RW-1 has categorically admitted
Ex.P-4-sale deed to be true. He further admitted that the acquired
lands are one kilometer away from Rajiv Rahadari leading to
6 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
Hyderabad through Karimnagar from Godavarikhani and the
acquired land is part and parcel of land in Sy.No.460, which is
being used for house plots, therefore, the acquired lands fetches
higher market value.
12. In the light of the aforesaid admissions of R.W-1, Ex.P-4-
sale deed can be safely taken into account for determining and
fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands. However,
since the land covered under Ex.P-4 is sold on yardage basis and
the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands, it is appropriate to
deduct 33.33% of the value reflected in Ex.P-4 towards
developmental charges and fix the market value of the acquired
lands. i.e., 33.33 % of Rs.6,34,040/-, works out to Rs.4,22,904/-
per acre
13. A perusal of impugned order shows that though the
Reference Court has observed that 33.3% of value reflected in
Ex.P-4-sale deed is to be deducted for fixing the market value of
the subject acquired lands, however, erred in computing the same
and erroneously fixed the market value of the acquired land @
7 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
Rs.3,00,000/-. The contention of learned counsel for claimant in
this regard holds water.
14. Learned counsel for claimant contended that the Reference
Court erred in not granting damages for the remaining un-acquired
land in the subject survey numbers, which has been segregated,
thereby causing loss in market value and potentiality and also
leaving the said lands without road access. In this regard, it is to be
seen that the claimant except claiming damages, has not chosen to
produce any documentary evidence like Village map, etc., to
substantiate his contention. Therefore, the said contention of
learned counsel merits no consideration.
15. In the light of the above discussion and reasons, the
Appeal-LAAS.No.381 of 2016 filed by Land Acquisition Officer is
dismissed and LAAS.No.371 of 2014 filed by claimant is partly
allowed, enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands
from Rs.3,00,000/- per acre to Rs.4,22,904/- per acre. It is needless
to say that the claimant is entitled to all the statutory benefits under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the enhanced market value.
8 LNA,J
& 381 of 2016
16. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
___________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:21.04.2025
dr
