Telangana High Court

Budhavataram Raju And 2 Others vs The Spl. Dy. Collector on 7 March, 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.104 of 2019

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 order and decree dated 29.10.2018 passed in

LAOP No.732 of 2013 by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court at Hyderabad (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 lands situated at

Shaikpet Village and Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad were acquired

for the purpose of road widening from Quli Tutub-Shah Tombs to

Old Bombay Highway, on the requisition made by the Assistant

City Planner, Circle-X, GHMC Hyderabad. A draft notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 31.03.2011, which was

published in the Gazette on 13.07.2011. The acquired properties

which fall in Shaikpet Village and Mandal is 261.10 Sq.Meters or

312.35 Sq.Yards under premises No.8-1-14/1 (old) and 14/20

(new) in T.S.No.14/1/2 of Ward No.13 in block No.C. After AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

following the procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted

compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the

same, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the

same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the XI Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

4. It is the case of the claimants that their land was acquired

for the purpose of road widening in the year 2010 and that they

were paid very meager compensation. Even in 2010 the land value

was more than Rs.24,000/- per square yard and that the LAO

failed to look into the sale transactions of 2010 though he referred

to the sales statistics of 2007-2010. It is their further case that the

interest should be calculated @15% including the solatium which

was not awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to

them the market value is more than Rs.40,000/- per square yard

and in general the lands are getting sold @ Rs.75,000/- per square

yard. Therefore, they prayed to fix the value @ Rs.70,000/- per

square yard.

5. The respondent has filed counter contending that the Land

Acquisition Officer fixed the correct value as per the procedure and

after examining the prevailing value of the land and that it was

reasonably fixed along with 30% solatium and 12% additional

market value.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the reference Court

has framed the following point for consideration:

"Whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not appropriate and the claimants are entitled for enhancement of such compensation, if so to what extent?"

7. Before the reference Court, the claimants got examined PW1

and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. on behalf of the respondent, RW1

was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

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

enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per square yard vide

orders dated 29.10.2018. Aggrieved by the said order and decree,

the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking further

enhancement of the compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for

the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the

reference Court failed to consider the correct market value of the

land that was acquired and that even in Ex.B1 the sales statistics

show the market value of the land in the vicinity to be more than

Rs.23,000/- per square yard in the year 2007-2008 and that the

reference Court failed to consider the same. He further submitted

that a 10% increase in appreciation of market value per year has to AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

be considered, if the sale transactions prior to the acquisition are

considered. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the

reference Court is very meager and therefore, prayed to set aside

the same by further enhancing the compensation in this appeal.

11. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the

reference Court has in fact awarded more than that portrayed in

the sale statistics and therefore, there is no need to interfere with

the order and decree passed by the reference court, hence, prayed

to dismiss the appeal.

12. Considering the above rival submission, this Court frames

the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. to what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The case of the petitioners is that their lands acquired for the

purpose of road widening are abutting the main road and that they

fetch more value than that awarded by the reference Court. That

the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the value of the sale on

15.04.2010 into consideration, in which the rate was @Rs.15,000/-

per square yard and has awarded the same to their lands but he AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

failed to consider the provisions of the Act or the judgments of High

Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

b) PW1 in his evidence has stated that the market value for

registration is more than Rs.40,000/- per square yard. PW1 is the

owner of the acquired property and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his

children. As per his evidence, the land value was Rs.24,630/- per

square yard in the year 2007 as per Ex.B1 referred at Sl.No.1 of

the sales statistics and that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed

to consider the same, but has taken a lower value of sales statistics

dated 15.04.2010 @Rs.15,000/- per square yard. He relied upon

Exs.A1 and A2 which are the sale deeds dated 26.12.2007 and

31.03.2008 respectively.

c) A perusal of the said documents reveal that they pertain to

the sale of apartments and not open land. Therefore, they cannot

be compared, to arrive at a correct decision about the value of the

land that is acquired.

d) A perusal of Ex.B1, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer

shows that Exs.A1 and A2 are also reflected in the sales statistics

but since they are not similar in nature to the land under

acquisition, he has not considered the same. The same cannot be

found fault with. PW1 further relied upon the market value

certificate is filed under Ex.A4 dated 24.06.2016. The basic value AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

registers are maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty

and hence, they cannot be taken as the guidelines for arriving at

the correct market value, as they have no statutory basis.

e) Ex.A3 is the letter addressed by PW1 to the Land Acquisition

Officer, dated 25.03.2010, wherein it is stated that an extent of

1056 square yards out of the total extent of 2440 Sq.yards was

sold to Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1995 and that he has

again sold another extent of 885 Sq.Yards in the year 1996 and

that the market value was Rs.20,000/- per square yard but the

said sale deeds are not filed in the Court, therefore, Ex.A3 also

cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, the documents filed by

the PW1 do not aid in proving his contention that the value of the

land is around Rs.50,000/ per square yard as stated in his chief

examination.

f) The evidence of RW1 reveals that the possession was not

taken prior to passing of the award and that it was taken only after

the award was passed and therefore, question of 15% interest as

claimed by the claimants does not arise.

g) A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that considering the registered

sale deeds dated 04.12.2008, 10.07.2009 and 15.04.2010, the

Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value as Rs.15,000/- per

square yard. It is pertinent to mention here that the draft AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

notification was made on 31.03.2011 and there is no sale data

available between the statistics relied upon by the Land Acquisition

Officer under Ex.B1 and the date of notification. Since, there is a

gap of more than a year, some amount of appreciation has to be

added to the value of the land while fixing the compensation but

the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the same.

h) In Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land

Acquisition), T.N.H. Board 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the

annual increase of 10% to 15% has to be allowed by the Court

where the record reflects increasing trend in the sale price of the

land.

i) In Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation and others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that instead of 10% cumulative increase, the High Court

ought to have added 12% increase cumulatively for about three

years.

j) Applying the said principle, it is opined that some amount of

appreciation has to be added to the value that is reflected in sales

statistics as on 15.04.2010 that is @Rs.15,000/- per square yard.

Considering the said principle, the reference Court has enhanced

2011 (2) ALD 108 (SC)

(2022) 7 SCC 563 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.104_2019

the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per square yard, which appears

to be justified. Apart from the said enhancement, the reference

Court has also allowed the statutory benefits. Hence, it is held

that the order and decree passed by the reference Court is well

reasoned and that the claimants are not entitled to any further

enhancement. 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 order and decree of the reference Court do not

need any interference.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order

and decree dated 29.10.2018 passed in L.A.O.P.No.732 of 2013 by

the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad. No costs.