Telangana High Court
Anil Gupta vs The Special Deputy Collector La on 23 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
L.A.A.S.No.35 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, 'the Act'), is filed aggrieved by the order and decree, dated
14.06.2018, passed in L.A.O.P.No.2229 of 2011 by the learned
III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short,
'the reference Court').
2. Heard Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the
Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, GHMC, Hyderabad, land
admeasuring 67.88 Square Yards situated at Road No.36, Jubilee
Hills, Hyderabad, belonging to the appellant, was acquired for the
purpose of widening of Road No.36, Jubilee Hills. Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 22.04.2008. The Land
2 AKS,J & LNA,J
Acquisition Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, passed
Award, dated 30.09.2008, fixing the market value for the subject land
at Rs.26,146/- per Square Yard.
4. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the appellant sought reference under Section 18
of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.2229 of 2011
on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
5. Before the reference Court, the appellant got himself examined
as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1. On behalf of the Land Acquisition
Officer, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked.
6. The reference Court, considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, vide impugned order and decree, dated
14.06.2018, enhanced the market value of the subject land to
Rs.35,944/- per Square Yard, besides granting 30% solatium on the
enhanced market value and 12% additional amount from the date of
notification till the date of Award along with interest. Not satisfied
with the compensation awarded by the reference Court, the present
3 AKS,J & LNA,J
appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of
compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the land
to an extent of 67.88 Square Yards situated at Road No.36 in Jubilee
Hills area belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of
widening of Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, by invoking urgency clause.
The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value for the
subject land at Rs.26,146/- per Square Yard and the reference Court
has enhanced the market value to Rs.35,944/- per Square Yard by
relying on the Sale Deed referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that
before the reference Court, though the appellant has relied upon
Ex.P1-Sale Deed, dated 04.02.2008, which is prior to issuance of
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and the judgments of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Sagunthala (Dead) through Lrs. v.
Special Tahsildar (L.A.) and others1, Ahsanul Hoda v. State of
Civil Appeal Nos.6240-6243, 6244-6248 of 2001 and 495-504 of 2002
4 AKS,J & LNA,J
Bihar2 and Sunder v. Union of India3, the reference Court has not
even dealt with the same in the entire judgment.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that
as per Ex.P1-Sale Deed, the value of the land in Road No.36 of Jubilee
Hills is Rs.92,000/- per Square Yard and that the Land Acquisition
Officer has also not taken note of the said Ex.P1, while passing the
Award. The Land Acquisition Officer has referred only three sales
alleged to have taken place in the vicinity of Road No.36. Neither the
reference Court nor the Land Acquisition Officer has considered
Ex.P1. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by
setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.06.2018, for not relying on
Ex.P1 and not awarding compensation in accordance with Ex.P1 and
remit the matter to the reference Court for fresh consideration of the
case of the appellant by duly taking into account Ex.P1 and the
judgments relied upon by the appellant.
10. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the
respondent had contended that since the reference Court has not
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3516
5 AKS,J & LNA,J
dealt with Ex.P1, marked on behalf of the appellant, and the
judgments, which were relied upon by the appellant, appropriate
orders be passed in the appeal to that effect.
11. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that though
the appellant has relied upon Ex.P1-Sale Deed, dated 04.02.2008, and
the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sagunthala's
case (supra 1), Ahsanul Hoda's case (supra 2) and Sunder's case
(supra 3), the reference Court has not even dealt with the same.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present appeal can be
disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.06.2018,
and remitting the matter to the reference Court, so as to enable the
reference Court to adjudicate the matter afresh, by taking into
consideration Ex.P1 and also the aforesaid judgments relied upon by
the appellant, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
Since the acquisition is of the year 2008, the reference Court is
requested to decide the subject L.A.O.P., as expeditiously as possible.
6 AKS,J & LNA,J
12. With the above observations/directions, the appeal is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 23.01.2025.
MD
