Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Gundam Ranga Rao

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022LAAS/32/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land Acquisition Officer filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation per square yard. The High Court upheld the Reference Court's valuation, noting the land's urban commercial potential and citing precedents, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Limitation Appeal (L.A.A.S.) was dismissed, confirming the order of the reference court dated 17.10.2016 without costs.

The State of Telangana Vs Gundam Ranga Rao — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶3

MONDAY ,THE^{TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENIY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

LAAS.No.32 of²⁰¹⁸

¶7

Appeal Under^{Section 54 of L.A. Act 1984 against the Judgment and} Decree dated 17.10.2016^{madein oP.No.51 0f 2005 0n the file of the court of} the Senior Civil^{Judge,Mahabubabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State^{Of Telangana,Land AcquisitionOfficer(RDO), Narsampet'}

¶10

...APPELLANT/REFERENGER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. Gundam Ranga Rao, S/o. Niuthilingam, age.30^{years, Occ-Business'} R/o.Narsamp6t^{Town and Mandal,Warangal District'}

¶13

Palai Ravi Kumar,^{S/o.Komuraiah,R/o-NarsampetTown and Mandal'} Warangal District.

¶14

Poshala Rama^{Swamy (Died), S/o.Mallaiah,Rl/o.NarsampetTown and} Mandal, Warangal^District.

¶15

Palai Chinna Komuraiah,^{S/o.Shankaraiah,Rl/o.Narsampet,Town and} Mandal, Warangal District.

¶16

Palai Rama Swamy,^{S/o.Kommaiah,Fl/o.Narsampet,Town and Mandal,} Warangal District.

¶17

Bhukya Surya, S/o.Somia,^{Rl/o.NarsampetTown and Mandal, Warangal} District.

¶18

Poshala Srinivas, S/o.Late^{Ramaswamy, age 47 years, Occ-Agriculture,} R/o.Narsampet Town and^{Mandal,WarangalDistrict-}

¶19

Poshala Saritha, Wo.Raiender @^{Chander Rao,Occ-Household,} R/o.Narsampet Town and Mandal,^{WarangalDistrict.}

¶20

g. Poshala Karunakar, S/o.Raiender @ Chander Rao, Fl/o. Narsampet Town and Mandal, Warangal District.

¶21

Poshala Venkateshwarlu,^{S/o.Late Ramaswamy, Occ-Agriculture'} -' nyo.t'liisampet Town and Mandal, Warangal District'

¶22

Poshala Rama,^{D/o.Ramaswamy, Occ-Household,RJo NarsampetTown and} lvlandal, Waranqal^District.

¶23

(The petitioner/claimant No.3^{diedand his L Rs claimants No 7 to 11 are} tiordni into record'^{as per orders, daled-2}'1.2 2012 in l'A No 619/2012'} 5inc6 oetitionerlctaimant^{No.S is a minor, he is represented by his next natural} motnel anO^{guardiani.e.,petitioner/claimant No'8)}

¶24

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶25

IA NO: 2 0F²⁰¹⁸

¶26

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition,the High Cou( may be pleased To stay} ofallfurtherproceedingspursuanttothejudgmentanddecreedated.lTl10/2016 made in LAOP.No.51/2005^{on the file of the Seniorcivil Judge' Mahabubabad} pending disposal of the^{LAAS No.32 of 2018 on the file of the High Court'}

¶27

Counsel for the^{Appellant: SRI D. KIRAN, AGP FOR APPEALS(TG)}

¶28

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRI B' NARAYANA REDDY}

¶29

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶30

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶31

L.A.A.S. No. 32 of 2O18

¶32

JUDGMENT : (1:er Justice G. Si Deut)

¶33

This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.10.2016 made in O.P.No.S1 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to as "the reference Court")-

¶34

The wet iand belonging to the claimants, to an extent of 4c.4.25 guntas in Sy.Nos.SS, 56 and 776, situated at Narsampet Village and Mandal, Warangal District, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of cattle market by issuing draft under Section a(1) of the Act oyr O2.O7 .2OO4 followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.l,0O,0O0/- per acre by passing award on 30.12.2004. Not satisfled with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. By an order

¶35

t'-

¶36

¶37

GSI). .l & rl(;l'.^J l.aas -12^{2() l8}

¶38

dated 17.1O.2016,^{the referenceCourtfixedthe marketvalueat} Rs.375/-^{per square yard. Aggrievedthcrcby, the piesent} appeal is hled^{by the Land Acquisition Officer'}

¶39

Heard Sri D.Kiran,^{learned AssistantGovernment} Pleader for the^{appellant and learned counselfor the claimants'} Perused the material^{available on record'}

¶40

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor Appeals} has contended^{that the reference Court erred in enhancingthe} value of the acquired^{land from Rs'1,0O,O00/- per acre as fixed} by the L.A.O.^{to Rs'375/-per square yard, which works out to} Rs.18,50,000/-^{per acre,without there being any cogent} evidence adduced^{by the claimants. It is further contendedthat} since the lalcl acquired^{is agricultureiand, the referenceCourt} ought not to have^{valued the compensationon square yard} basis, but it should^{have been on aceragebasislt is further} contended that^{the reference Court erred in not deductingany} amount towards^{developmentcharges, whencompensationis} fixed for the^{larger extent of the acquired land basing on the} smaller extents^{coveredby the exhibitsproduced by the} claimants.

¶41

(;SD,J&]\TGP,J t-aas 32 2018

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsei appearing for the ciaimants submits that taking into consideration the potentiality of the land, the reference Court has rightly determined the market value at Rs.375/- per square yard as the acquired lands are located in urban residential and urban commercial area. Therefore, the counsel sought to sustain the impugned order.

¶43

As seen from the record, before the reference Court, the claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 apart from marking five documents as Exs.Pl to P12. According to the claimants, the lands. are surrounded by residential and office buildings and are adjacent to Raghu Public School, that the lands are facing the P.W.D. road passing from Narsampet to Kammapally Village and Duggondi Mandal Headquarters, that R & B road from Hyderabad to Bhadrachalam-Kothagudem is passing adjacent to the acquired land and that on the western side of the land there is a college by name Triveni Junior College for women. Thus, the evidence goes to show that the acquired lands are situated within the residential and commercial ioca_lity. Further, R.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the acquired land is within the vicinit5r and surrounded by Schools, \

¶44

¶45

GSt).,t & Nl(;1,',1 l.:ras l2 2() l8

¶46

R.T.C. Depot, bus station,^{cinema theatreand other commercial} cstablishments. He^{also admittedthat the acquiredpropcrqyis} fit for commercial and^{residential purposes.Consideringthe} said evidence, the^{referenceCourt has rightly determinedthe} market value on the^{yarciage basisinsteadof acerage basis.}

¶47

7 . Further, in view of^{the 1aw laid down bv the Apex} Court in C,R.Nagaraia^{Shettg tt. SpecialLand Acquisition} Officer and Estate Offi.cert,^{as the veryacquisitionof the land} rvas for the purpose of cattle^{market, there should not bc any} deduction towards develcpment^{charges and therefore, the} contention of the learned Assistant^{GovernrnentPleaderin this} regarcl does not nerit consideration.^{It is ihefurther} contention of the learned^{AssistantGovernmentPleaderthat as} the acquired land is of larger^{extent, the reference Court ought} not to have relied on Exs.Pl to^{P10 as they pertain to smaller} extents. In this regard, it^{is well settled law that in the absence} of any relevalt evidence to tJre^{extent of land under acquisition} in regard to its market^{value, there is no bar to consider the sale} transaction of lesser extents of land^{more so when the need for} deductions for development^{is not found necessaryas the entire}

¶48

1 2oo9 (1) LAcc

¶49

¶50

GSD, J & N{GP,.I Laas_32_20I g

¶51

vrcrnity is already developed. In Stcte of punjab and another u. Hansraj (dead.) bg L.Rs. Sohan Singh and. others: thc Apex Court has held that " method. of tuorktng out the auerage price' paid und.er different sale transactions is not prope r and that one should not haue, ordinailg recourse to such method. The Apex Court further held_ that the bona ftde sale transac tions proximate to th.e point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood. of the acquired lands are the real bttsis to determine the m61i1s1 ,a1r.,,. Further the Apex Court in Anjcrlzi Molu Dessqi a. State of Goa qnd anotheF after relying upon rts earlier decisions held that "the legal position is that euen tuhere there e.re seueral exrzmplars with reference to similar lands usuallg the highest of the exemplars, uthich is a bona .fide transaction, utill be consid.ered., Subsequently, in Mehrawal Kheuaji Irust (Regd), Farid.ko t and. others v. State of Punjab and othersa the Apex Co urt held that "When th.e tand IS being ampulsoily taken a utay from a person, he b entitted to the higltest uatue tuhich similar land in the tocatitg lss hou.tn to haue fetch-ed in a bona ftde transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a utilling seller near about the ttme of th.e

¶52

, Qgg4) 5 SCC 734 ' (2010) 13 SCC 710

' (2012) s scc 432

I I

GSD,.I &^{N,I(;P, J} Leas -12 201⁸

¶57

acquisition." l{owever,^{in the case on hand, althoughtrxs'[)1' P4} to P7 would^{reflectthe rates at Rs.5O0/-and Rs'250/-per} square J/ard,^{the rcferenceCourt has taking an average basis,} has fixed the market^{valueat Rs.375/- per squareyardHad} the reference Court^{taken the highestsale consideration among} Exs.P1, P4 to P7, the^{claimants wouldhave got more} compcnsation^{than the one Iixed by the referenceCourtSuch} being the casc, this^{Court is not inclined to interfere with the} market valuc of thc^{acquired land hxed by the rcferenceCourt'} Hencc, the L.A.A.S.^{is devoid of merits and the sameis liable to} be dismissed.

¶58

Accordingly, the L.A.A.S.^{standsdismissed} confirming the order^{of tJ.e referenceCourt, dated 17' 1O 20 16 in} O.P.No.15 of 2OO5.^{No orderas to costs.}

¶59

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, ifany, shali stand}

¶60

closed.

¶61

SDI^.K.SRINIVASA R JOINT^REGIST

¶62

/ITRUE^COPY,,

¶63

SECTION^OFFICER

¶64

spr