Telangana High Court
M/S Bashara Bhawan Flat Owners ... vs The Special Deputy Collector, on 31 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.100 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.
2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for brevity 'the Act'), is filed by the claimants aggrieved by
the order and decree dated 04.02.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.33 of
2006 on the file of the Ist Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Reference
Court").
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that the Government
acquired a total extent of 4,127.47 square yards of property, which
includes land admeasuring 116.17 square yards bearing premises
No.16-10-49 and land admeasuring 67.75 square yards bearing
premises No.16-10-49/C, situated at Nalgonda X-Roads, Malakpet,
Hyderabad, belonging to the appellants/claimants, for the purpose
of construction of fly over bridge at Nalgonda Cross roads; that
Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
Hyderabad District Gazette on 29.09.2005; that Draft declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was published in Hyderabad District
Gazette on 30.09.2005 and after following the procedure prescribed
under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition
Officer passed Award, dated 13.03.2006, fixing the market value of
the acquired land @ Rs.2,229/- per square yard.
4. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under
Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent
Civil Court, which was numbered as LAOP.No.33 of 2006.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants
/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were
marked.
6. The Reference Court, on due enquiry, by order dated
20.04.2009 dismissed the said OP. Challenging the said order, the
claimants carried the matter to the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh by filing LAAS.No.412 of 2009 and the High Court vide
judgment dated 21.02.2011 set aside the order dated 20.04.2009 of
the Reference Court and remanded the matter to the Reference
Court for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after
giving notices and opportunity to the parties concerned.
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
7. After remand of the said OP, before the Reference Court,
on behalf of the claimants, Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked and P.W-1
was further examined by filing his additional affidavit in lieu of
chief examination. On behalf of the respondent-Referring Officer,
R.W-1-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, was
examined and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked.
8. On due appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, placed before it, the Reference Court enhanced the
market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,229/- per square yard
to Rs.5,400/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory
benefits under the Act to the claimants. Seeking further
enhancement of the market value fixed by the Reference Court for
the acquired property, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants inter alia
contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the
documents filed by the appellants/claimants in proper perspective;
that the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the
acquired properties ought to have taken the highest of the
exemplars, i.e., Ex.P-2-sale deed into consideration, but it failed to
do so; that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the fact
that the acquired properties are situated in midst of commercial
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
area and surrounded by prominent buildings and therefore, the
same has higher potentiality and fetches higher market value; and
therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be
set aside, by enhancing the market value of the acquired land, as
claimed by the appellants/claimants.
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals
appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended
that the Reference Court taking into account the location of the
acquired properties and on due appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence placed before it, has rightly fixed the market
value of the acquired land, which requires no interference by this
Court and prayed to dismiss this Appeal, as being devoid of any
merits.
11. In order to assess and fix the market value of the subject
acquired land, this Court has undertaken the exercise of examining
each and every document, i.e., the exhibits, placed before the
Reference Court. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are Market Value Certificates
However, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, i.e., in Choda Dharampal
Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District 1 and
1998(1) ALD 261 (DB)
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodardas2 the said documents cannot
form basis for determination of market value of the acquired
property.
12. Exs.A-6 and A-7 being news items published in 'The Hindu'
English daily newspaper, the same cannot be taken into account for
determining the market value of the acquired properties.
13. Ex.P-1, as deposed by P.W-3, is check slip pertaining to
Ex.P-2-sale deed. P.W-3-Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar's Office,
Azampura, in his evidence deposed that the market value of the
undivided area of 8.36 square yards reflected in Ex.P-1 as
Rs.9,900/- per square yard, is, in fact, based on the Basic Value
Register maintained by the Sub-Registrar's Office. Further, Ex.P-2-
sale deed, dated 14.02.2005, being a combined sale deed, there is
no separate break-up showing the market value of the built-up area
admeasuring 301 square feet and the market value of the undivided
area of 8.36 square yards. It is common knowledge that the sale
consideration paid for a flat in an apartment/commercial complex,
would be in respect of value of the built-up area and proportionate
undivided area of land. Therefore, in the absence of any specific
break-up of the market values of the built-up area and undivided
(2022) 14 SCC 60
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
area of land being reflected in Ex.P-2, the Reference Court has
rightly not taken the said sale deed as exemplar sale deed for fixing
the market value of the acquired land.
14. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-1-Award, shows that the Land
Acquisition Officer has referred to six sale deeds pertaining to the
relevant period of three years preceding the date of 4(1)
notification, wherein the market value of the land was ranging from
Rs.2,100/- to Rs.5,415/- per square yard. The market value of the
land shown in the sale deed, dated 28.08.2005, at Sl.No.2 is
Rs.5,415/- per square yard, is the highest among all the sale deeds.
However, the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded the same on
the ground that the land covered under the said sale deed is situated
in a bye-lane at a distance of one kilometer from the land under
acquisition and has fixed the market value of the acquired land
@ Rs.2,229/- per square yard based on sale deed, dated
28.05.2005, shown at Sl.No.1 of the Award.
15. Perusal of the record discloses that the sale deed, dated
28.05.2005, shown at Sl.No.1 of the Award, which was relied upon
by the Land Acquisition Officer, for fixing the market value of the
acquired land, is a combined sale deed and the Land Acquisition
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
Officer, after deducting the structure value as assessed by the Sub-
Registrar, worked out the value of the land @ Rs.2,229/- per square
yard. Here, it is pertinent to note the definition of the expression
'market value' as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma
Singh Vs. State of Haryana 3 is extracted as hereunder:-
"The market value is the price that a willing purchaser
would pay to a willing seller for the property having
due regard to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibilities when led out
in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage
due to carrying out of the scheme for which the
property is compulsorily acquired. In considering
market value disinclination of the vendor to part with
his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to
buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be
the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would
offer the land and a purchaser in normal human
conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in
normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at
arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale
brought about in quick succession or otherwise to
inflate the market value. The determination of market
value is the prediction of an economic event viz., a
price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of
probabilities."
(2008) 2 SCC 568
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
16. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deed which was relied upon
by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value of the
acquired land, obviously, does not reflect the true and correct
market value of the land covered therein, as it does not fall within
the definition of expression 'market value',
17. Here, it is relevant to note that the genuineness of the sale
deed, dated 28.08.2005, shown at Sl.No.2 of the Award, is not
disputed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In other words, it is not
the case of the Land Acquisition Officer that the said sale deed is
not a bonafide transaction, as observed by the Reference Court. In
such an event, though, admittedly, the land covered under the said
sale deed is situated in a bye-lane at a distance of one kilometer
from the land under acquisition, the same cannot be discarded only
on the said flimsy ground. As, admittedly, the land under
acquisition abutting the main road, which definitely has higher
potentiality and fetches higher value than what was reflected in the
sale deed shown at Sl.No.2 of the Award. Therefore, in the light of
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
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab 4, the Reference Court has rightly
fixed the market value of the acquired land based on the said sale
deed.
18. Further, it is settled principle of law that when it is the case
of the claimants that the compensation granted by the Reference
Court is unreasonable and meager, the burden is upon them to
prove that the acquired land fetches higher market value than the
one fixed by the Reference Court, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Deputy Collector and another etc., v. Kurra
Sambasiva Rao and others5. In the instant case, the claimants
failed to discharge such burden cast upon them and no material,
evidence is placed on record in support of their contention/claim
and hence, they are not entitled for enhancement of market value of
the acquired land as was fixed by the Reference Court.
19. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Reference Court has rightly adopted the
sale deed shown at Sl.No.2 of the Ex.R-1-Award and fixed the
market value of the acquired land, based on the same. Hence, the
(2012) 5 SCC 432
AIR 1997 SC 2625
10 AKS, J & LNA, J
impugned order of the Reference Court warrants no interference by
this Court and the Appeal is liable to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
21. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:31.01.2025
dr
