Edma Rajagopal Reddy, vs The Special Dy.Collector/Lao, L A Unit
2025 Latest Caselaw 2596 Tel

Telangana High Court

Edma Rajagopal Reddy, vs The Special Dy.Collector/Lao, L A Unit on 27 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

                       L.A.A.S.No.68 of 2016

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 judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 passed in

O.P.No.97 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar

(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.17-30 ½ guntas situated at Deshrajpalli village of Ramadugu

Mandal, Kairmnagar district along with other structures,

residential houses, standing crops, trees has been acquired by the

Government for formation of the new broad gauge single railway

line from Karimnagar to Jagtial. A draft notification was published

on 08.07.2002, then the Government took possession of the said

land on 30.11.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the

market value @Rs.40,000/- per acre to the acquired lands and also

has granted Rs.7,06,500/- per structure, Rs.2,08,062/- for AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

residential houses in survey Nos.415, Rs.80,455/- per topes in

survey Nos.341 & 400, and Rs.78,203/- for standing crops,

Rs.27,597/- for trees. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have

made an application seeking enhancement of the compensation

and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the

reference Court,

4. The reference Court has framed the following points for

consideration:

"1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, what was the market value ought to have fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands acquired from the claimants?

2. To what relief?"

5. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3

and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, while the respondents have not

adduced any evidence.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has

enhanced the compensation to that of Rs.2,90,000/- per acre.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants

seeking further enhancement.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.11 to 13.

8. Learned appellants counsel has argued that the reference

Court ought to have enhanced the compensation upto

Rs.8,00,000/- per acre instead of Rs.2,90,000/- per acre and that

the reference Court ought to have seen that the acquired lands are

well developed agricultural lands cultivated through well water and

also through SRSP canal water and that the lands are of red chelka

soil in nature, which are rich in fertility and have high potentiality

and utility. He further submitted that the acquired lands are

double crop dry and wet lands and that the owners used to raise

commercial crops like cotton, chilly, groundnut, green gram and

vegetables. He further submitted that the lands around the

acquired lands are being sold as house sites on yardage basis and

that they have high potentiality of being sold as house sites. He

further submitted that the acquired lands are abutting the village

which is fully developed with High School, Electricity,

Telecommunication, Veterinary Hospital, Transport facilities,

cotton mills, dairy farms, poultry farms, weaving units and brick

manufacturing units. He further submitted that the lands in

neighbouring village Vedira which is away from Karimnagar have

also been acquired for the very same railway line. The notification AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

was given for the said acquisition on 04.08.2002 while the present

notification is on 08.07.2002 and that in the said lands at Vedira,

the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from

Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.3,40,000/- per acre. He thus, prayed

this Court to set aside the award of the reference Court and

enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal.

9. Learned respondent counsel has opposed and submitted that

the reference Court has examined the entire evidence and has

enhanced the compensation to that of Rs.2,90,000/- and that

there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the reference

Court. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. 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 judgment and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. to what relief?

11. POINT NO.1:

a) A perusal of the oral evidence reveals that PW1 is one of the

claimants, he spoke about the fertility of their lands and also their

earnings. His evidence further reveals that the market value on AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

the date of acquisition was Rs.20,000/- per gunta and that their

lands are surrounded by rice mills, oil mills, saw mills, poultry

farms etc., and that if at all the Land Acquisition Officer has not

acquired their lands, they could have easily earned

@Rs.25,00,000/- per acre, on par with the other unacquired lands,

which are being sold as on date. That their net annual income of

the said lands through the commercial crops was Rs.1,00,000/-

per acre and that by the time of said acquisition, the said lands

were converted to residential purpose and were being sold as house

sites. The said aspect was not considered by the Land Acquisition

Officer. It is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 that the

acquired lands are abutting PWD road and that it is about a

distance of half KM from the said road and that the said acquired

lands fall on either side of the railway line.

b) PW2 is a vendee in the registered sale deed marked under

Ex.P3. His evidence reveals that he purchased the land under

Ex.P3 for a sum of Rs.38,000- @ Rs.60/- per square yard. PW3 is

the vendor in the sale deed marked under Ex.P2. His evidence

reveals that he has sold his land for a sum of Rs.7,300/-

@ Rs.60.33 per square yard, which works out to Rs.2,92,000/- per

acre. Nothing much could be elicited through their cross

examination to discredit their evidence.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

c) RW1 is the RDO, Karimnagar who deposed based on record

and has admitted that the railway line which is passing towards

Jagityal is parallel to the PWD road leading to Jagityal from

Karimnagar and that there are commercial complexes and

residential houses situated beside the PWD road on either side. He

has also admitted that the lands are abutting PWD road and also

that there are commercial establishments adjacent to the lands

acquired.

d) The claimants have relied upon Exs.P1 to P4 which are the

sale deeds dated 11.07.2002, 20.06.2000, 18.07.2001 and

29.03.2001 respectively. A perusal of the record reveals that Ex.P1

is the sale deed, dated 11.07.2002 which is subsequent to the

notification and hence not considered. Under Ex.P2 an extent of

121 Sq.Yards in survey No.568/C was sold @ Rs.60/- per square

yard, which comes to a total value of Rs.7,300/-. Under Ex.P3 an

extent of 633 Sq.yards in survey No.419/B was sold @ Rs.60/- per

square yard, which comes to a total value of Rs.38,000/-. Under

Ex.P4 an extent of 560 square yards in survey N.636/E was sold at

Rs.60/- per square yard, which comes to a total value of

Rs.33,600/-. On an average, it fetches around Rs.2,90,000/- per

acre.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

e) Thus, the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the documentary

evidence i.e. sale deeds under Exs.P2 to P4 prove that the market

value of the acquired lands was higher than what was awarded by

the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, considering the said facts,

the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation from

Rs.40,000/- to that of Rs.2,90,000/- per acre.

f) Though the claimants seek for further enhancement, this

Court is of the opinion that the compensation cannot be enhanced

further in the absence of any other documentary evidence. The

sale deeds filed by the claimants portray that the value of the land

was Rs.60/- per square yard. It is their own evidence to the effect

that the value of the land is around Rs.2,90,000/- per acre.

Considering the said fact, there is no infirmity with regard to the

award passed by the reference Court, therefore, the claim of the

appellants is not justified. Hence, it is held that the claimants are

not entitled to further enhancement of compensation in this

appeal. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

12. POINT NO.2:

In view of the reasoned finding arrived at in the Point No.1,

this Court holds that the judgment and decree of the reference

Court do not need any interference.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.68_2016

13. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the

judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 passed in O.P.No.97 of

2007 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: 27.02.2025 ns