Telangana High Court
Union Of India, Secunderabad vs Nomula Laxmi, Ibrahimpatnam And 26 ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
LAAS.No.317 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard Sri Sri Anurag Rachapally, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the appellant, Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 26/claimants and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for
respondent No.27-Land Acquisition Officer.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short 'the Act') is filed by the beneficiary of the lands
under acquisition being aggrieved by the order and decree dated
02.06.2014 passed in LAOP.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the Court
of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial (hereinafter referred to as "the
Reference Court').
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition
made by the Executive Engineer (Con), South Central Railway,
Karimnagar, the lands, both dry and wet, totally admeasuring
Acs.12.28 ½ guntas situated in Sy.Nos.1745, 1749, 1752, 1753,
1754, 1756, 1757, 1777 to 1780, 1782, 2283/2, 2283/4, 2283/5,
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
2283/7 and 2283/8 of Bandalingapur Village, H/o Sathakkapally,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to
respondent Nos.1 to 26/claimants were acquired for the purpose of
formation of new Broad gauge single railway line from Jagtial to
Errapur (Phase-III); that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 31.12.2007; that Draft
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P.
Gazette on 04.01.2008; that possession of the acquired lands was
taken on 18.04.2008; and that after following the procedure
prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land
Acquisition Officer passed Award No.8 of 2008, dated 03.06.2008,
fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,30,000/- per
acre for both dry and wet lands.
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 26/claimants received the
compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under
protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the
same was referred to the competent civil Court, which was
numbered as LAOP.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the Reference
Court.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.1
to 26/claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-
2-sale deeds were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer,
R.W-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked.
6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, passed the impugned order answering the
Reference in favour of the claimants and enhanced the market
value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,36,000/- per acre for wet as well
as dry lands. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is
filed.
7. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant, which is the
beneficiary of the lands under acquisition, contended that the
Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the
acquired lands by placing reliance on Exs.P-1 and P-2, without any
basis and material; that the Reference Court has fixed the market
value of the acquired lands on mere assumptions and presumptions
though no cogent material was placed by the claimants and
therefore, the impugned order is illegal and as such, the same is
liable to be set aside.
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
26/claimants contended that Reference Court has rightly
appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and having found
that the Land Acquisition Officer has relied on some irrelevant sale
deeds and undervalued the market value of the acquired lands, it
has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands by following a
catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore,
the impugned order is sustainable. Learned counsel prayed this
Court to dismiss the Appeal as the same is devoid of any merits.
9. In order to assess fair and reasonable market value of the
acquired lands, it is essential and mandatory to look into the
aspects like fertility, potentiality and location of the acquired lands
and the development of area in its vicinity or its proximity to the
developed area. These aspects play a vital role in determining the
market value of the acquired lands.
10. Apropos the said aspects, in the instant case, it is to be seen
that it is the case of the claimants that the acquired lands are well
developed agricultural lands, cultivated with water through pump
sets and SRSP Canal and they are rich in fertility, texture, high
potentiality and are situated in the limits of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
Head Quarters and number of industrial, educational, residential
and commercial establishments are existing in the parallel area to
the acquired lands and as such, the acquired lands, which were
agricultural lands, were converted into residential purposes prior to
issuance of 4(1) notification; and that ignoring all the said factors,
the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed undervalued market value
for the acquired lands.
11. The contention of the claimants is that the subject acquired
lands were converted into residential purposes. But, under Ex.R-1-
Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation
for the trees and wells existing in the subject acquired lands.
Hence, this Court finds no truth in the said contention of the
claimants.
12. P.W-1, one of the claimants, reiterated the averments made
in the claim petition. P.W-2, who is the attestor of Ex.P-1-sale
deed, deposed the contents of the said document and further
deposed that the land covered under Ex.P-1 and the subject
acquired lands are similar in nature and are abutting
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Head quarters.
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
13. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim for
enhancement, have relied upon Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds.
Ex.P-1 is registered sale deed, dated 30.08.2005, whereunder an
extent of 847 square yards of land in Sy.No.2027/AA of
Bandalingapur Village was sold for Rs.135/- per square yard,
which works out to Rs.6,53,400/- per acre. Similarly, Ex.P-2 is
registered sale deed, dated 22.09.2007, whereunder an extent of
242 square yards of land in Sy.No.1 was sold @ Rs.150/- per
square yard, which works out to Rs.7,26,000/- per acre. Thus,
under Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds, the lands were sold for house
sites on yardage basis. The genuineness of the said documents is
not disputed.
14. This Court, on perusing Ex.R-1-Award, found that the Land
Acquisition Officer has referred to Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds,
which pertain to sale of lands in Sy.Nos.2027 and 1, however,
discarded the same on the ground that they pertain to sale of house
sites. He relied upon Ex.R-2-sale deed which pertains to sale of
land in Sy.No.1119 and adopting the value mentioned therein,
fixed the market value of the acquired lands. As rightly observed
by the Reference Court, the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
has referred to as many as 25 sale deeds pertaining to
Sathakkapally, H/o Bandalingapur Village, whereunder different
extents of land was sold on yardage basis, itself shows that
Bandalingapur Village, where the subject lands are acquired, is
very proximate to developed area and as such, the subject acquired
lands have potentiality for house sites. Further, the Reference Court
also rightly taken note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer
has not chosen to produce the village map to show the distance
between the acquired lands and the sale deeds referred to in the
Award. However, the claimants pleaded and were successful in
establishing the fact that the lands covered under Exs.P-1 and P-2
and the acquired lands are proximate to each other and are within
the limits of Sathakkapally Village. Hence, when Exs.P-1 and P-2-
sale deeds were in respect of sale of house sites, in the light of the
foregoing analysis, a presumption can be drawn that the subject
acquired lands also have potentiality for house sites.
15. In such case, the Land Acquisition Officer was not
supposed to discard the sale deeds vide Exs.P-1 and P-2 merely on
the ground that house sites were sold thereunder, when it is the
categorical case and in fact, proved by the claimants that the
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
acquired lands, being abutting Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Head
Quarters, have potentiality of house sites.
16. P.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice deposed reiterating their claim
regarding the potentiality of acquired lands for house sites. Though
P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing contra was
elicited and their evidence stood unrebutted. R.W-1 who is
examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer admitted that
railway line from Karimnagar-Nizamabad is running parallel to
Karimnagar-Nizamabad State Highway. Indisputably, the subject
lands were acquired for formation of Karimnagar-Jagtial railway
line. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the acquired lands
might be situated nearer to Highway. Also, it is the case of the
claimants that the acquired lands are in the limits of Ibrahimpanam
Mandal Head Quarters. These facts buttress the claim of the
claimants that the acquired lands have potentiality for residential
purposes.
17. In the light of the above facts, this Court holds that the
Land Acquisition Officer has grossly erred in not relying upon
Exs.P-1 and P-2-sale deeds for fixation of market value of the
acquired lands. The Reference Court has appreciated the evidence
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
on record from a proper perspective and has rightly found fault
with the approach adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer in
discarding the sale deeds under Exs.P-1 and P-2.
18. It is settled principle of law that when there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, the highest of the
exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to
be considered and accepted, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab 1.
19. Following the aforesaid principle, this Court holds that the
Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.P-1-sale deed and
taking it as an exemplar sale deed, it has fixed the market value of
the acquired lands after deducting 1/3rd of the value mentioned
therein towards developmental charges, since the subject acquired
lands are agricultural lands and the lands covered under Ex.P-1 is
house site.
20. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant contended that
when the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the
acquired lands, it erred in granting separate compensation for the
(2012) 5 SCC 432
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
trees and wells existing in the acquired lands and therefore, he
sought to set aside the said relief granted by the Reference Court.
21. Here, it is apt to note that in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (dead)
through LRs and others Vs. State of U.P. 2, in the instant case,
as no capitalization method was followed by the Land Acquisition
Officer while awarding compensation for the acquired lands, the
claimants are entitled to separate compensation for the trees and
wells existing in the acquired lands. Therefore, the Reference Court
has rightly confirmed the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer for the trees and wells existing in the acquired
lands. Hence, the above submission of the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant holds no water and as such, cannot be
countenanced.
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Reference Court has not committed any illegality
or irregularity in fixing the market value of the acquired lands and
therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court.
23. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(2003) 10 SCC 525
11 AKS, J & LNA, J
24. As a sequel, interim order dated 07.10.2015 passed in
LAASMP.No.1063 of 2015 stands vacated. Miscellaneous
Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:24 .01.2025
dr
