Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector/ vs V. Satyanarayana on 13 February, 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.3739 of 2003
AND
X-Objections (SR) No.3391 of 2009
COMMON 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 Special Deputy
Collector, Karimnagar, aggrieved by the order and decree dated
13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No.4 of 1998 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court').
2. The appellants - Special Deputy Collector is aggrieved by the
order of the trial Court enhancing the compensation from
Rs.18,000/- per acre that was granted by the Land Acquisition
Officer to that of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre.
3. X-Objections are filed by the respondents - claimants praying
for enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.4,00,000/-. It is their contention that the lands which were
acquired are useful for residential house purpose and that the
Court below while enhancing the market value ought to have
considered that the neighbouring lands are sold for residential
houses, medical, educational institutions, industrial and
AKS,J & ETD,J
commercial establishments and documentary evidence was filed to
the said effect. It is their further contention that the acquired
lands were purchased by the claimants therein by forming into
house building society and many places were sold in the year 1988
and that the acquisition has taken place when the construction
was about to be started and that the lands in the vicinity were
developed with rice mills, poultry farms and dairy farms. They
further contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the
documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A21 ought to have been
considered by the Court below. That the lands acquired are
situated nearer to Karimnagar Town and that they are just 1 KM
away from the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and that during
the pendency of the acquisition proceedings the area in which the
acquired lands is situated, was brought under the purview of the
Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar. Therefore, they prayed for
enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
4. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
5. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the
requisition made by the Deputy Chief Engineer South Central
Railway, land to an extent of Ac.11.02 guntas situated in the limits
of Arepalli village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired,
AKS,J & ETD,J
for the purpose of laying railway line. A draft notification was
issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act on 02.11.1995 in the
Gazette and on 14.11.1995 in the local news paper. After
conducting the due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed
the market value of the land as Rs.18,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by
the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and
the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the trial
Court.
6. The trial Court has framed the following point for
consideration:
"Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation, if so, at what rate?"
7. The claimants before the trial Court got examined PWs 1 to 3
and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. One Sri Manzoor Ahmed, Special
Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.C.Railway, Karimnagar
got examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has
enhanced the compensation from Rs.18,000/- per acre to
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the
Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal.
AKS,J & ETD,J
9. Heard the submissions of Smt.T.Suhasini, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellants and Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for
the respondents.
10. The learned appellants counsel has argued that the trial
Court has not considered the evidence let in by the
respondents/Land Acquisition Officer and that it has simply
passed the award based on the sale deeds filed by the claimants
and simply believed their evidence and has awarded the exorbitant
amount and has therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by
the trial Court by allowing the appeal.
11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has
filed cross objections and submitted that the trial Court has
granted a meager amount of compensation, and that the
documents filed by the claimants are not properly considered and
has therefore, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation.
12. Considering the above facts, the grounds raised in the appeal
and the X-objections filed by the claimants, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the trial Court's order and decree need
any interference?
3. To what relief?
AKS,J & ETD,J
13. POINT NO.1:
a) A perusal of the record reveals that for the purpose of laying
a railway line, a vast extent of Ac.11.02 guntas situated in the
limits of Arepalli Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was
acquired. Exs.A7 & A8 are the sale deeds relied upon by the
claimants. The said sale deeds pertain to the years 1994 and 1995
and hence, the same can be considered while awarding
compensation as they pertain to the preceding three years of the
present acquisition.
b) The evidence of PW1 discloses that the acquired land are
situated by the side of PWD road i.e., National Highway leading
from Hyderabad to Nagpur via Karminagar and Mancherial and
that the said lands are situated near Abadi of Karimnagar city
which is a special Grade Municipality and that his lands in survey
Nos.233 to 235 are located at a distance of 200 to 250 yards from
the said PWD road. It is further elicited through his evidence that
there is one Matha Manikeshwari Temple, one of the biggest holy
place of Karimnagar District and that there is a Housing Society by
name Veerabhadriya Housing Colony developed in the year 1990
and that his neighbouring lands were being sold for house plots
and commercial purposes through Sripriya Real Estates in the year
1990 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per gunta. It is further elicited
AKS,J & ETD,J
through him that there is a rice mill, junior college, poultry farm
etc., in the vicinity of their lands. The Land Acquisition Officer
who was examined as RW1 has deposed before the trial Court
admitting that the present acquired land is situated at a distance
of 1 KM from the Government Hospital, Karimnagar and that the
entire lands acquired for laying the railway line are mostly situated
adjacent to the main road from Karimnagar to Mancherial and that
remaining lands are situated at a distance from the road. Thus, it
is clear from the evidence of PW1 and RW1 that the acquired lands
are situated in a developed area and that it is at a distance of 1 KM
from the Government Hospital and also that the land acquired has
more potentiality towards development into house plots. It is
elicited from PWs 1 to 3 that there are many house plots in and
around the acquired lands and in fact there are many housing
societies, under which large extents of lands were converted into
house plots. PW6 is the vendee of the sale deed dated 19.12.1994.
PW7 is also a vendee of sale deed dated 26.12.1994, the sale
transaction under Ex.A1 shows that an extent of Ac.0-02 guntas
was sold in survey No.234 for a sale consideration of Rs.18,200/-
which comes to a total value of Rs.3,60,000/- per acre.
AKS,J & ETD,J
c) Thus, considering the evidence adduced by the claimants
under Exs.A1 to A21 and also the sale transactions disclosed in
the statistics under Ex.B1, it is revealed that the lands at Arepalli
village fetch more value, than what is awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer and hence, it is held that the claimants are
entitled for enhancement in compensation and the amount
awarded by the trial Court i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- is held to be
justifiable amount.
d) It was contended by the learned appellant counsel that the
sale transactions shown in bits and pieces cannot be taken as a
standard to fix the market value over a vast extent of land. 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.
e) 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".
(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385
(2011) 6 SCC 47
AKS,J & ETD,J
f) 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".
g) Thus, when no other comparable documents are available,
the sale transactions involving smaller extents of land can be
considered by allowing reasonable deductions, if they are similar in
potentiality, utilization, amenities and infrastructure. Based on
the said principle, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation
from Rs.18,000/- to that of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this
Court holds that the trial Court's order and decree do not need any
interference.
15. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal and the X-objections filed by the
claimants are dismissed upholding the order and decree dated
13.06.2003 passed in O.P.No.4 of 1998 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge at Karimnagar. No costs.
AKS,J & ETD,J
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 13.02.2025
ns
