Telangana High Court

G.V.B.Tilak vs The Lao,Huda,Hyderabad on 28 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

                   APPEAL SUIT NO.524 OF 2004

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 appellant - claimant in

O.P.No.150 of 1989, aggrieved by the common order and decree

dated 25.10.2002 passed in O.P.Nos.146 of 1989, 147 of 1989, 148

of 1989, 150 of 1989, 151 of 1989 and 152 of 1989 by the learned

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R.Nagar

(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 Land Acquisition

Officer has acquired an extent of Ac.05-06 guntas of land at

Karmanghat for formation of inner ring road by the HUDA in survey

Nos.7/1, 9 and 10. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the

Act was published in the gazette on 27.04.1983. After conducting

due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the

compensation @ Rs.10/- per square yard, out of which, 1/3rd was

deducted and fixed Rs.6.67/- per square yard as the compensation.

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has made an application AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the learned

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar.

4. The case of the claimants is that the market value of the land

acquired is Rs.200/- per square yard and the compensation fixed by

the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and that deducting 1/3rd

from the value assessed by him is very unjust and that the land

acquired is for the purpose of formation of inner ring road and

therefore, the deduction was not proper.

5. The reference Court has framed the following points for

determination:

"1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for and if so to what extent?

2. Whether the deduction of 1/3rd area is just and proper?

3. To what reliefs, if any?"

6. Before the reference Court, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 was

marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and

Ex.B1 was marked.

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

enhanced the compensation @ Rs.15/- per square yard but 1/3rd

was deducted by the reference Court for developmental purposes

and consequently, it was arrived at Rs.10/- per square yard apart AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

from awarding the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the

claimant has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Someswar Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the

respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

orders of the reference Court are contrary to law and that the

reference Court has erred in fixing the compensation @ Rs.10/- per

square yard. The reference Court ought to have considered the sale

transaction under Ex.A1 under which the land was sold @ Rs.74/-

per square yard and that the land under Ex.A1 is in the vicinity of

the acquired land. He further submitted that the reference Court

ought not to have deducted 1/3rd of the compensation towards

developmental charges, as there is no need for development as

already the acquired land is in developed area. He therefore, prayed

to set aside the order of the reference Court by allowing this appeal.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that there is

no infirmity in the order passed by the reference Court and that the

reference Court has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards developmental

charges and fixed the compensation and therefore, prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

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

following points for determination:

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

2. Whether the deduction of 1/3rd compensation towards developmental charges in the acquired land is improper?

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

4. To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:

a) It is an admitted fact that the land is acquired for the purpose

of formation of inner ring road by HUDA at Karmanghat village. The

evidence of PW1 is to the effect that the acquired land fetches

around Rs.200/- per square yard. He relied upon Ex.A1 which is a

certified copy of sale deed.

b) A perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that the land in survey No.67 is

made into plots and that plot No.143 is sold @ Rs.75/- per square

yard. PW1 deposed that it is adjacent to the land acquired. From

the evidence of RW1, it is elicited that sale transaction dated

01.09.1982 and another sale transaction dated 09.02.1983 were

considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the market

value at Rs.10/-, out of which 1/3rd was deducted. The

comparative sales statistics reflected in Ex.B1 reveal that by a AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

document dated 01.09.1992, land admeasuring 60 square yards

was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard in survey No.311/1 and 311/2.

Another sales statistics is dated 09.02.1983 under which 500

Sq.yards was sold @Rs.30/- per square yard. These transactions

are prior to the notification and can be safely relied upon but the

Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the same.

c) Considering the said evidence on record and the sale deed

filed under Ex.A1 dated 30.06.1982 and also the sales statistics

reflected in Ex.B1, it is held that the value fixed by the Land

Acquisition Officer is lesser than to which the claimants are

entitled. Therefore, the reference Court has rightly arrived at fixing

the compensation @ 15/- per square yard which appears to be well

justified. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO.2:

a) The reference Court has deducted 1/3rd towards

developmental charges, after fixing the value @ Rs.15/- per square

yard.

b) It is to be noted that if the land is acquired for the purpose of

house site, then it requires a lot of developmental activities and

thus, deduction of 1/3rd is justified.

AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

c) In this case, the acquisition was for the purpose of formation

of inner ring road and that the land acquired is at Karmanghat

area, which was already developed in the year 1982. Ex.A1 reveals

that the sale was under yardage basis for house sites and also

Ex.B1, the award copy reflects the sales statistics during the

preceding three years showing that the land had high potentiality.

d) In U.M. Ramudu & Ors. v. RDO cum LAO Adoni and

others 1, it was held by a Bench of this Court that the lands are

lying in well-developed municipal area, having facility of access to

main road, electricity, water lines, etc. but nonetheless, when vast

extents of lands which are acquired and are to be developed into a

layout, by providing house sites to the weaker sections, 1/3rd value

has got to be deducted.

e) In view of the law laid down in the above cited decision, it is

held that deduction of 1/3rd is proper, wherein the land is acquired

for house sites but in the present case, the land is acquired for

formation of inner ring road, for which the 1/3rd deduction is held

to be improper. Therefore, it is held that there is no need for

deduction of 1/3rd compensation towards developmental charges.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 131 AKS,J & ETD,J AS No.524_2004

14. POINT NO.3:

In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2,

it is held that the order and decree of the reference Court need to be

modified with regard to the 1/3rd deduction made by the reference

Court and that the compensation arrived at by the reference Court

@ Rs.15/- per square yard is upheld but the finding with regard to

the 1/3rd deduction towards developmental charges is set aside, as

a result of which, the claimants would be entitled to the

compensation of Rs.15/- per square yard for the acquired lands.

15. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the

order and decree dated 25.10.2002 passed in O.P.No.150 of 1989 by

the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

N.T.R.Nagar, with regard to the 1/3rd deduction towards

developmental charges and accordingly, the claimant is entitled to

the compensation of Rs.15/- per square yard for the acquired lands.

There shall be no order as to costs.