The Special Deputy Collector vs A. Bhoomaiah
2025 Latest Caselaw 2107 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Special Deputy Collector vs A. Bhoomaiah 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.3869 of 2003
                            AND
              X-OBJECTIONS (SR) No.3389 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.113 of 1997 by the learned Senior

Civil Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial

Court').

2. The appellant - Special Deputy Collector is aggrieved by the

order of the trial Court enhancing the compensation from

Rs.16,800/- per acre that was granted by the Land Acquisition

Officer to that of Rs.1,46,000/- 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 purposes 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 that documentary evidence was

filed to the said effect. It is their further contention that the

acquired lands in subject matter O.P.No.04 of 1998 were

purchased by the claimants therein by forming into house building

society and many plots were sold in the year 1988 and that the

acquisition has taken place when the construction was about to

get started and in the vicinity there were rice mills, poultry farms

and dairy farms. They further contended that the evidence of PWs

1 to 5 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A9 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 are 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.29.16 guntas situated in the limits AKS,J & ETD,J

of Bommakal village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was

acquired, for the purpose of laying railway line. A draft notification

was issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act on 17.10.1995 in

the Gazette and on 14.11.1995 in the local news paper. After

conducting the due enquiry, the LAO has fixed the market value of

the land as Rs.16,800/- 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 5

and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. One 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.16,800/- per acre to

Rs.1,46,000/- 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 Ms.T.Suhasini, learned Standing

Counsel for the appellants and Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for

the respondents.

10. The learned appellant counsel has argued that the trial court

has not considered the evidence adduced 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 of Rs.1,46,000/-

per acre 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 of 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 the land was acquired for

the purpose of formation of New Broad Gauge Railway Line and a

vast extent of Ac.29-16 guntas situated in the limits of Bommakal

village of Karimnagar Mandal and District was acquired. Exs.A1 to

A7 are the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants. Under Ex.A1,

dated 09.03.1994 an extent of 133.33 Sq.Yards in survey No.126

was sold @Rs.35/- per square yard for a total amount of

Rs.4,670/- Under Ex.A2, dated 25.03.1994 an extent of 400

Sq.Yards in survey No.39, Plot Nos.31 and 32 was sold @ Rs.50/-

per Square Yard for a total amount of Rs.20,000/-. Under Ex.A3,

dated 31.03.1994 an extent of 242 Sq.Yards in survey No.738 was

sold @ Rs.80/- per square yard, for a total amount of Rs.19,360/-.

Under Ex.A4, dated 06.07.1994 total an extent of 400 sq.yards in

survey No.38 and 39, plot Nos.68 part and 69, was sold @Rs.85/-

per square yard, for an amount of Rs.34,000/-. Under Ex.A5,

dated 17.10.1994 an extent of 200 sq.yards in survey No.41, Plot

No.44 was sold @Rs.40/- per square yard, for an amount of

Rs.8,000/-. Under Ex.A6, dated 23.02.1995 an extent of 466.67

Sq.Yards in plot bearing Nos.77 and 76 (which form a compact

block) in survey No.76 was sold @Rs.45/- per square yard, for an

amount of Rs.21,100/-. Under Ex.A7, dated 09.11.1995 an extent

of 1070.17 Sq.Yards in survey No.748/B was sold @Rs.413.20/-

AKS,J & ETD,J

per square yard for a total amount of Rs.4,42,300/-. All the sale

deeds filed by the claimants under Exs.A1 to A7 pertain to the

years 1994 and 1995, hence, the same can be considered while

awarding compensation as they are within a period of three years

prior to the present acquisition.

b) A perusal of these exhibits reveals that the value of the land

under the sale deeds was ranging from Rs.1,69,400/- to that of

Rs.19,99,888/- per acre. Depending on the quality of the land, the

price must have varied even among the sale transactions under

Exs.A1 to A7.

c) The oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows that the acquired

lands are situated near Rajiv Rahadari State Highway leading from

Hyderabad to Godavarikhani via Karminagar and that the land

acquired from PW1 is adjoining the abadi of Karimnagar City and

that it is at a distance of ½ KM from Kishannagar locality of

Karimnagar Municipality and that his neighbouring lands were

purchased by Sripriya Real Estates and were made into house

plots and were being sold @Rs.20,000/- per gunta in the year 1993

and that out of the same survey No.90 an extent of Ac.04-00

guntas were acquired in this case, which belongs to claimant Nos.1

to 4. It is further elicited from the evidence of PW2 that their lands

are double crop dry lands and that they were being irrigated by AKS,J & ETD,J

SRSP Canal Water and as the said lands were fertile, they used to

cultivate chilies, ground nut, vegetables and cotton crops and earn

a net annual income of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre per

year. PW3 is the vendee of sale deed under Ex.A3 and PW4 is the

attestor of sale deed under Ex.A6 and they deposed about the said

sale transactions. Nothing much was elicited during their cross

examination to discredit their evidence. PW5 is an Architect who

has assessed the value of wells in the lands under Exs.A9 and A10.

There is no challenge about the said estimations made with regard

to the wells in the appeal.

d) RW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the

acquired lands are situated at a distance of about 4 KMs from

Karimnagar town.

e) Karimnagar is the District headquarters and Bommakal

village is situated at a distance of 4 KMs from the main city.

Obviously, the lands would fetch good returns and as it is observed

through the sale transactions under Exs.A1 to A7, they are of

much higher value than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer.

AKS,J & ETD,J

f) A perusal of Ex.B1, the award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer discloses that he has taken the statistics of the

sales pertaining to the years 1994 and 1995, wherein the price of

the lands ranged from Rs.16,000/- per acre to that of

Rs.20,00,684/- per acre, which shows that there is wide range in

the price of the land situated in the said village. However, the

Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration, two

statistics i.e. one at Sl.No.278 which discloses that the sale

transaction pertains to 13.09.1994, wherein the market value is

shown to be Rs.16,563/- per acre. So also, he has considered the

sale transaction at Sl.No.566, which discloses that the market

value is shown to be Rs.16,800/- per acre. The Land Acquisition

Officer has taken these two sale transactions into consideration

ignoring all others on record though he is supposed to take into

consideration the highest sale value of the land portrayed in the

sale statistics pertaining to that village. In this regard, it is apt to

refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust

v. State of Pubjab 1, wherein it is held as under:

"When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted."

(2012) 5 SCC 432 AKS,J & ETD,J

g) In the present case, the highest of the exemplars is not

considered by the Land Acquisition Officer while awarding

compensation.

h) Thus, considering the evidence adduced by the claimants

under Exs.A1 to A7 and also the sale transactions disclosed in the

statistics under Ex.B1, it is revealed that the lands at Bommakal

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 reference Court i.e. Rs.1,46,000/- is held to be

justifiable amount.

i) 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 2 and Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal 3.

j) In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer's

case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 385

(2011) 6 SCC 47 AKS,J & ETD,J

"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".

k) 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".

l) 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.16,000/- to that of Rs.1,46,000/- per acre and hence, the

same is held to be justified. 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.

AKS,J & ETD,J

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.113 of 1997 by the learned Senior

Civil Judge at Karimnagar. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

___________________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J Date: 13.02.2025 ns