Telangana High Court
V. Laxma Reddy vs The Land Acquisition Officer/ on 25 April, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*****
L.A.A.S.No.166 OF 2007
Between:
1. V.Laxma Reddy, S/o.late V.Bal Reddy,
Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.Balanagar Village & Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District (Died per LRs A2 to A4)
2. Bendhi Jayanthi W/o.B.Srinivas Reddy,
Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.H.No.1-37/B, Elikatta, Mahabubnagar.
3. Kothur Revathi W/o.Kothur Janardhan Reddy,
Aged about 63 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.Flat No.57, Prim Rose Block L & T Serene County,
Urdu University, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Rajender R. Venkat S/o.Venkat Laxma Reddy,
H.No.2-69, Post Office Road, Balanagar,
Mahabubnagar - 509 202.
Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record
as LRs of deceased sole appellant as per Court Order
dated 27.06.2023,
vide I.A.No.3 of 2023 in LAAS No.166 of 2007 ... Appellants/
Claim Petitioners
And
The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar,
Mahabubnagar District. ... Respondent/
Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 25.04.2025
Submitted for approval.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
3
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ LAAS No.166 of 2007
% Dated 25.04.2025
Between:
# 1. V.Laxma Reddy, S/o.late V.Bal Reddy,
Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.Balanagar Village & Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District (Died per LRs A2 to A4)
2. Bendhi Jayanthi W/o.B.Srinivas Reddy,
Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.H.No.1-37/B, Elikatta, Mahabubnagar.
3. Kothur Revathi W/o.Kothur Janardhan Reddy,
Aged about 63 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.Flat No.57, Prim Rose Block L & T Serene County,
Urdu University, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Rajender R. Venkat S/o.Venkat Laxma Reddy,
H.No.2-69, Post Office Road, Balanagar,
Mahabubnagar - 509 202.
Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record
as LRs of deceased sole appellant as per Court Order
dated 27.06.2023,
vide I.A.No.3 of 2023 in LAAS No.166 of 2007 ... Appellants/
Claim Petitioners
And
$ The Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar,
Mahabubnagar District. ... Respondent/
Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.Kranthikumar Reddy,
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Learned Government Pleader
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 131
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
L.A.A.S.No.166 of 2007
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 appellants -
claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.05.2003
passed in O.P.No.71 of 1999 by the learned Additional District
Judge at Mahabubnagar (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.02-28 guntas was acquired by the Government for formation
of Metro gauge to Broad gauge railway line at Balanagar. Draft
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on
12.01.1996, while the possession was taken on 21.03.1994. After
due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market
value @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the
claimants have made an application under Section 18 of the Act,
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
which was referred to the Additional District Judge at
Mahabubnagar.
4. The case of the claimants is that the acquired land is very
near to the National Highway and that just behind the acquired
land there are commercial complexes, hotels and shops, also a
railway station and an MRO Office and that the acquired land is of
commercial value.
5. The reference Court has framed the following points for
consideration:
"1. What is the market value of the acquired land
by the date of acquisition?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation?"
6. Before the reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs
1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent,
RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
7. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has
enhanced the compensation to Rs.50,000/- but made a deduction
of Rs.15,000/- and thus, arrived at a market value of Rs.35,000/-
per acre, apart from statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said
award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
8. Heard the submissions of Sri A.Kranthikumar Reddy,
learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government
Pleader for the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
reference Court has erroneously arrived at the principle of making
deductions for development in an acquisition made for the
purpose of broad gauge railway line. He further argued that the
said deductions would be made when it is acquired for the
purpose of house sites but not for the purpose of railway line. He
further argued that the reference Court failed to consider the
evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and also the documents filed under Exs.A1
to A6. He further argued that PW2 is the purchaser of the land
under Ex.A1 and his evidence was also not considered by the
reference Court and also that the reference Court failed to
consider the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar
in OP No.249 of 1984, wherein the reference Court has awarded
Rs.70/- per square yard and the Hon'ble High Court reduced to
Rs.45/- per square yard, when the land was acquired for the
purpose of house sites, therefore, they claimed to enhance the
compensation to Rs.50/- per square yard.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the
reference Court has considered all the evidence on record and has
arrived at just compensation and has therefore, prayed to uphold
the same.
11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement
of compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court
need any interference?
3. to what relief?
12. POINT NO.1:
a) The sale deeds relied upon by the claimants are under
Exs.A1, A2, A4 and A5. Ex.A1 dated 07.11.1995, wherein the
land to an extent of 200 Sq.yards was sold @Rs.300/- per square
yard in survey No.233 situated at Balanagar Village and Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District. Ex.A2 dated 07.11.1995, wherein the
land to an extent of 200 Sq.yards was sold @ Rs.250/- per square
yard, however, it pertains to survey No.233. Ex.A4 dated
10.12.1993, wherein the land to an extent of 26.66 Sq.yards was
sold @ Rs.110/- per square yard in survey No.234. Exs.A1, A2
and A4 pertains to survey Nos.233 and 234 respectively, while the
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
present acquisition is in survey Nos.171, 172, 203 and 204.
Ex.A5 cannot be considered because it pertains to 10.02.1989
which is five years prior to acquisition.
b) The values under Exs.A1, A2 and A4 are different which are
Rs.300/- per square yard, 250/- per square yard and 110/- per
square yard, so they vary under different survey numbers and the
present acquisition does not pertain to the survey numbers under
which the above sale transactions have taken place.
c) PW1 denied the suggestion that the lands under Exs.A1 and
A2 are situated by the side of National Highway and they are fit
for commercial purposes. The land under Ex.A1/the sale deed, is
stated to be in the village and on the station road and is about
400 yards away from the acquired land, as per the admission
made by PW2. PW3 further admitted that the land under Ex.A2
sale deed is around 300 yards away from the National highway
and that his plot is situated between the National highway and
the railway station.
d) Therefore, based on the evidence on record, the said sale
transactions under Exs.A1, A2 and A4 pertain to the lands which
are abutting the national highway as revealed from the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3, while the acquired land is abutting the railway track.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
Thus, the said sale deeds can be no way compared to the acquired
lands.
e) The sales statistics as revealed in the award copy under
Ex.B1 refers to the sale transactions held at Balanagar village and
Mandal during 1993-95. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken
the sale transaction at Sl.No.13 under which Ac.1.28 guntas was
sold @ Rs.50,000/- and has reduced the value by Rs.20,000/- per
acre as the said land was found to be 1 KM away from the
National Highway. The reference Court also has taken into
consideration the said sale transaction at Sl.No.13 i.e. @
Rs.50,000/- per acre but has given 1/3rd deduction and arrived at
Rs.35,000/- per acre.
f) The record reveals that the purpose of acquisition is for
laying the broad gauge railway line. Thus, from the evidence of
the witnesses and a perusal of the documents reveal that the
acquired land is abutting the railway track, once it is near the
railway track, it cannot be held to have any potential for
development into commercial purposes.
g) It is settled law that whenever the land is acquired for
house sites, then a deduction of 1/3rd is permissible. In U.M.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
Ramudu & Ors. v. RDO cum LAO Adoni and others 1, it was
held by a Bench of this Court that the lands are lying in well-
developed municipal area, having facility of access to main road,
electricity, water lines, etc. but nonetheless, when vast extents of
lands which are acquired and are to be developed into a layout, by
providing house sites to the weaker sections, 1/3rd value has got
to be deducted. In view of the law laid down in the above cited
decision, it is held that deduction of 1/3rd is proper, wherein the
land is acquired for house sites, but in the present case, the
acquisition is made for broad gauge railway line, hence, the
deduction is not proper in the eye of law. Therefore, the reference
Court was right in enhancing the compensation to Rs.50,000/-
per acre, however, it is held that the deduction that is made by
the reference Court is not just and proper in view of the legal
position and has to be set aside. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
13. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is
held that the order and decree of the reference Court need to be
modified with regard to the 1/3rd deduction made by the reference
Court and that the compensation arrived at by the reference Court
2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 131
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.166_2007
@ Rs.50,000/- per acre yard is upheld but the finding with regard
to the deduction of Rs.15,000/- is set aside, as a result of which,
the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of
Rs.50,000/- per acre, for the acquired land.
14. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside
the order and decree dated 02.05.2003 passed in O.P.No.71 of
1999 by the learned Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar,
with regard to the deduction @ Rs.15,000/- and accordingly, the
claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- per
acre for the acquired land. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 25.04.2025
ns
