Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector, vs Tatineni Ramesh Chandrababu, on 21 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.291 of 2015
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 Deputy
Collector, Nalgonda aggrieved by the order and decree dated
13.12.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.83 of 2009 by the learned Senior
Civil Judge at Miryalaguda (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 Government
acquired an extent of Ac.40-03 guntas of land in survey Nos.247,
248, 250, 253, 254, 257 and 258 of Rebale Village of Mellacheruvu
Mandal, for the purpose of foreshore submergence under
Dr.K.L.Rao Sagar (PCP) Project. A draft notification was issued
under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.08.2005 in the Gazette. After
conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded
compensation for the acquired lands at Rs.42,000/- per acre.
Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to
the reference Court.
4. The reference Court has framed the following points for
consideration:
"1. Whether the Award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is not reasonable and adequate?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced
compensation to the acquired lands and structures, if
so, at what rate?
3. To what relief? "
5. The claimants before the reference Court got examined PWs
1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. One Yalala Ramulu, Special
Deputy Collector got examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 was marked.
6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has
awarded Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and for the structures at
Rs.76,63,252/- under Section 23(1) of the Act with 30% solatium
on the enhanced compensation amount including the structure
value. Further, it was also held that the claimants are entitled to
additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the
date of notification to the date of award i.e., from 13.09.2005 to
30.11.2007 including the structure value and the interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one
year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
compensation amount, solatium and additional market value till
the enhanced compensation amount and structure value is paid or
deposited into Court. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the
Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal.
7. Heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader
for the appellant and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. Learned Government Pleader for the appellant has submitted
that it is a consent award and that the Reference Court has
committed an error in enhancing the compensation and also
awarding amounts to the structures, though there were no
structures in the acquired lands. It is contended that though there
are fish tanks, they are kept fallow and hence, no amount need to
be granted for structures. Therefore, prayed to set aside the award
to the extent of compensation granted for structures.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the
compensation and that it does not call for any interference.
10. Considering the above rival submissions, this Court frames
the following points for consideration:
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the claimants are not entitled for any amount
towards structures?
3. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court
need any interference?
4. To what relief?
11. POINT NOs.1 and 2:
a) The evidence of PW1 reveals that the land acquired was
having all the civic amenities expected of a developed village and
that the land is located near the Krishna river and it is a
Grampanchayath having civic amenities like upper primary school,
fair price shop and it is also elicited through him that the farmers
were raising commercial crops i.e. cotton, chillies, Red Gram and
Paddy through irrigation under the Krishna river. Several cement
industries are also established and are running near the acquired
lands. He has submitted that their lands are entitled to be treated
as "A" category lands and that a minimum compensation of
Rs.1,80,000/- per acre needs to be awarded besides other benefits.
He further submitted that they have incurred loans from Primary
Agriculture Co-Operative Society for raising fish tanks and
therefore, their structures have to be valued at Rs.85,14,724/-.
b) PW2 is a third party to the proceedings and a former
sarpanch of the village. It is elicited through his evidence that he
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
found fish tanks in the lands under acquisition and that there was
erection of electricity poles, water pipes, transformers and that
there are pipe lines from Krishna river to the acquired lands and
that in his presence panchanama was conducted by the village
sarpanch.
c) PW3 is also a former sarpanch of the village and a third
party to the proceedings and that he was also the witness to
panchanama conducted by the government servants with regard to
the existing fish tanks in the acquired lands.
d) A perusal of Exs.A1 to A7 reveals that an inspection was
conducted by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda District
along with the other Government officials and have submitted
report to the Special Deputy Collector of land acquisition for
pulichinthala project and also that there was internal
communication in this regard between the Executive Engineer and
the Special Deputy Collector, Pulichinthala project. A perusal of
Ex.A8 reveals that it is a panchanama of the acquired land and it
bears the signatures of PWs 2 and 3.
e) It is elicited through RW1 that the total land acquired under
notification was Ac.235-08 guntas including the land in this case
which is Ac.40-03 guntas, out of the said Ac.235-08 guntas, an
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
extent of Ac.183-15 guntas was covered under consent award. The
present award is passed for the remaining Ac.51.33 guntas. Thus,
it is elicited through him that the award passed in the present case
is not a consent award. He further admitted that the LAO paid an
amount of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre to A category lands,
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to B Category lands and Rs.60,000/- for 'C"
category lands and that the Land Acquisition Officer considered the
acquired lands in the present case to be 'B' Category lands and
thus, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. He further stated that there
are fish ponds, pipe lines from Krishna river, electrification by
wires and poles to fish tank, electric motors and transformers in
the land under acquisition. He further admitted that the lands
under acquisition are nearer to Krishna River and that they are
developed lands but stated that there was no cultivation of fishes
in the ponds at the time of acquisition.
f) The admission made by RW1 and a perusal of Ex.B1 reveals
that it was not a consent award as far as the remaining extent of
Ac.51.33 guntas of land is concerned and the present case falls in
the said acquisition and also that the acquired land had fish tanks
and structures and that it is near the Krishna river and had all the
amenities like fish ponds, pipe lines from Krishna River,
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
electrification by wires and poles to fish tank, electric motors and
transformers in the land under acquisition.
g) Therefore, in view of the potentiality of the land, the
claimants sought for enhancement before the reference Court and
the reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation.
However, the learned Government Pleader has argued that
awarding the amounts towards structures is not correct. The
learned Government Pleader has stressed on the point that even if
the award is confirmed, the amount granted towards structures
needs to be deducted.
h) Since, it is elicited through the evidence on record that there
are fish ponds in the acquired lands and for erection of fish ponds
with all the amenities, the claimants must have incurred a lot of
expenditure and thus, the reference Court ought to have awarded
compensation for the said fish ponds. But the reference Court has
awarded the amount to structures instead of holding the same
towards fish ponds. Therefore, it is held that the amount that is
awarded towards structures by the reference Court has to be
awarded for the fish ponds.
i) Considering the evidence on record and the fact that it is not
a consent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.291_2015
holds that order and decree of the reference Court need no
interference. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and for
the fish ponds at Rs.76,63,252/- instead of structures under
Section 23(1) of the Act, apart from the other statutory benefits as
granted by the reference Court. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
12. POINT NO.3:
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.
13. POINT NO.4:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order
and decree dated 13.12.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.83 of 2009 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 21.03.2025
ns
