The Special Gr.Deputy Collector vs Sri E.Srinivas Prasad
2025 Latest Caselaw 3082 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3082 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

The Special Gr.Deputy Collector vs Sri E.Srinivas Prasad on 13 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.109 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 Special Grade

Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, HMR GHMC,

Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.06.2018

passed in L.A.O.P.No.366 of 2014 by the learned IX 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 case of the claimants before the reference Court is that

the Land Acquisition Officer has invoked the urgency clause and

got issued draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on

01.05.2012 for the purpose of road widening from Narayanaguda

to Veer Savarkar Statue to Kachiguda via YMCA. After

conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed

the award on 01.07.2013 awarding a compensation of

Rs.40,000/- per square yard and structure value at Rs.500/- per AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109_2019

square feet along with statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said

award, the claimant has filed a petition for reference and the

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

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

4. The reference Court has framed the following points for

consideration:

"1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation? If so, at what rate?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the LAO is just, reasonable and adequate?"

5. Before the reference Court, the claimant got examined PWs

1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A40. On behalf of the

respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

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

enhanced the compensation to Rs.65,000/- per square yard, in

addition to the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order

and decree, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the

present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader

for the appellant and Sri V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for

the respondents.

AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109_2019

8. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the

reference Court has grossly erred in enhancing the compensation

and that the award of Land Acquisition Officer is fair and

reasonable and was not supposed to be enhanced, he therefore

prayed to set aside the orders passed by the reference Court by

allowing this appeal.

9. Learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has

submitted that the order of the reference Court is based on

sound reasoning and therefore, prayed to confirm the same.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames

the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief?

11. POINT NO.1:

a) PW1 is the claimant and his evidence reveals that the

acquired property is situated in prime locality and is surrounded

by business establishments and that the entire area is a

commercial area and has a scope for further development and AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109_2019

that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the structure

value properly. Initially, the claimants have sought for

enhancing the value to Rs.1,00,000/- per square yard but

subsequently they got their claim statement amended seeking to

fix the land value at Rs.2,00,000/- per square yard. He further

deposed that a flat admeasuring 12,000 Sft with premises

bearing Nos.3-4-540/1, 3-4-540/2, 3-4-540/A, 3-4-540/B, 3-4-

548, 3-4-548/2, 3-4-548/3, 549 and 549/1 at YMCA

Narayanaguda, was sold for Rs.25,00,000/- vide document

bearing No.875 of 2007. He relied upon Exs.A1 to A26 and A34

to A38 reflecting the sale transactions wherein the cost of the

land varied from Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.32,00,000/- and that the

land that is sold under these exhibits fall interior to the main

road and that the acquired land is abutting the main road.

b) PW2 is the government registered valuer, who has deposed

that he inspected the commercial buildings and residential

buildings at Narayanguda and Kachiguda for evaluating the

construction cost and has given his report under Ex.A27.

c) A perusal of Ex.A27 reveals that it is a valuation certificate

dated 29.04.2017 and that he has assessed the prevailing value

of the structures in 2006 to 2012 of several buildings which were AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109_2019

constructed in the years 2006 to 2012 and has estimated the

value of those structures. As per Ex.A27 the purchase cost as

per the registered document is Rs.94,46,600/- in the year 2012

for a flat plant at Narayanguda admeasuring 1865 sft, the

building cost is estimated at Rs.13,80,100/- while the remaining

is assessed as land cost. In the same fashion, he assessed the

buildings that were constructed in the year 2011 also. A perusal

of sale deeds under Ex.A12, dated 08.02.2012 in the ground floor

of Preetham apartment admeasuring 495 sft was sold for

Rs.18,00,000/-. Under Ex.A39 dated 09.05.2012 wherein

Rs.94,46,600/- is the sale consideration for the property of

1147.5 Sq.yards with semi finished flat No.201 in the first floor.

d) The claimants have relied upon several other exhibits

pertaining to the years 2008, 2009, 2010. However, 2012

documents if perused reveal that they had a high market value,

which is far more higher than that is awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer.

e) RW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the

acquired property forms part of the ward no.3 and block No.5

and that the compensation for the acquired property is fixed

basing on documents of ward no.3 and block No.4 but no such AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109_2019

document is filed in this regard. He stated that the acquired

property falls in residential area. The claimant asserts that his

house was acquired for road widening and that it had ground +

two floors and that it was let out for rent. It is elicited through

PW1 that his property is situated on the main road in the prime

locality and opposite to YMCA and the same is admitted by RW1.

It is further elicited that it had several portions in ground + two

floors which were let out for rents. Thus, his property being

opposite to YMCA fetches higher value and it is in the

commercial area, therefore, it is held that the land that is

acquired has higher market value than what is assessed by the

Land Acquisition Officer and the amount as enhanced by the

reference Court appears to be well justified. Point No.1 is

answered accordingly.

13. 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.

14. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order

and decree dated 11.06.2018 passed in L.A.O.P.No.366 of 2014 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.109_2019

by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad. No costs.