Dismissed

Land Acqusition Officer v. Bobbala Narayana Reddy

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022LAAS/47/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Land Acquisition Appellate Authority's second appeal. The court upheld the Reference Court's enhancement of land compensation to Rs. 3,000 per square yard, ruling that development charges need not be deducted and that sales of smaller plots in the vicinity were relevant evidence of value.

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Appellate Appeal was dismissed without costs. The judgment of the VI Additional District Judge confirming the compensation award was set aside is hereby confirmed.

Land Acqusition Officer Vs Bobbala Narayana Reddy — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE^{TWENTY SIXTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICEG. SRI DEVI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶6

LAAS.No .47 of²⁰¹⁸

¶7

Appeal Under^{Section 54 of L A' Act 1984 againstthe Judgmentand} Decreedated29.oS.2ol1inLAoP.No.Sl6of20OgonthefileoftheCourtofthe Vl Additional^{District J udge, Ir'4ahabubabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

TheLandAcquisitionOfficer,(TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer)'Mahabubabad

¶10

...APPELLANT/REFERENCES

¶11

AND

¶12

¶13

1. Bobbala Narayana^{Reddy,S/o.Veladraiah (Died) per LRs CL'No33'34'}

¶14

ChallaYakuh^{Reddy' S/o.VenkatReddy'}

¶15

Alli Badraiah.,^{S/o. Laxminarayana,}

¶16

Alli Rajender.,^{S/o laxminarayana,}

¶17

Alli Yadagiri.,^{S/o.Laxminarayana'}

¶18

Kongara Prahhakar,^S/o.llaiah,

¶19

Smt Brahrnanapally^{Soma Laxmi, W/o'Anandam'}

¶20

Sri Neelagiri^{Gattaiah, S/o.Veeraiah,}

¶21

Smt Pulluri Sarojana,^{Wo.Late Ramaiah,}

¶22

10.Sri Annamaneni Ravinder,^{S/o.VenkataRao,}

¶23

1 1 . Smt Gundaboina^{Kanthamma,Wo. Raghavulu,}

¶24

l2.Bobbala Ram^{Mohan Reddy,S/o.VeeraReddy,}

¶25

l3.Bobbala Venkat^{Reddy,S/o.VeeraReddy,}

¶26

Sri Maroju Somachary,^{S/o.Manikyam,}

¶27

'15. Smt- Yata fi/allamma, W/o,Late Raiaiah,

¶28

l6.Valiakath Champakavalli,^D/o.Damodar,

¶29

17- Sri Vattodial Thomas,^S/o.Vargees,

¶30

1 8. Thalluri Hariprasad, S/o.Laxmaiah,

¶31

'19. Gande Krishna I/urthy, S/o.Venkataiah,

¶32

Malyala Ramchandraiah,^{S/o.Veeramallu'}

¶33

Smt. Kornaravalli Sharatha,^Wo.Sathish,

¶34

Sri Nangunuri Venkateshwarlu,^{S/o. Narayana,}

¶35

Sri Nangunari Srinivasa^{Rao, S/o.BhaskarRao,}

¶36

Sri Thalluri Venkatesharlu,^{S/o. Ramaiah'}

¶37

Sri Thalluri Satyanaryana,^S/o.Ramaiah,

¶38

Sri Mannem Koteshwar^{Rao,S/o.Penchalaiah'}

¶39

27.Challa Chennakeshava^{Reddy,S/o. Narsimha Reddy,}

¶40

Sri Kota Narsimha^{Rao, S/o.Penchalaiah,}

¶41

Sri Gundavarjm Devender,^{S/o.Venkataiah,}

¶42

Sri Gandrakota Laxmaiah,^{S/o.Chennaiah,}

¶43

31 . Sri Gandrakota Veeraiah,^{S/o.Chennaiah,}

¶44

32.Smt Gandrakota Upendra,^{Wo.Late Ramulu,}

¶45

33.Bobbala Laxmi, Wo.^{Narayana Reddy,}

¶46

34.Bobbala Yadava Reddy,^{S/o.NaryaanaReddy,}

¶47

(All are Rl/o. Nekkonda (v) and (m) of Nekkonda^{Mandal,WarangalDistrict}

¶48

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶49

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶50

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased to grantinterim} stay of all further proceedings^{pursuance to the orders dated. 29-08-2017made} in LAOP.No.816 of 2009 on the file of Senior^{Civil Judge,Mahabubabad.}

¶51

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

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SHIAKYOUSUF^{ALUAJAY KUMAR MADI6ETTY} The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶53

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶54

AND

¶55

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶56

L.A.A.S. No. 47 of 2018

¶57

JUDGMENT t (per Justice G. Sri Deul

¶58

This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") by the Land Acquisition Oflicer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.Oa.2O17 made in L.A.O.P.No.816 of 2OO9 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge at Mahabubabad (hereinafter referred to as "the reference Court").

¶59

The lands/ structures belonging to the claimants to an extent of 25289 square yards (5.09 acres) situated at Nekkonda Town were acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Road Over Bridge at Nekkonda Town by issuing draft under Section a(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 26.12.2OO3 followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16.0l.2004 . After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1675/- per square yard for the lands under category-l; Rs.70O/- per square yards for category-2 and Rs.500/- per square yard for category-3 by passing award on

¶60

¶61

(;sD..l .t i,I(;1,,,l i.a;:s.17 20l8

¶62

C 1.05.2O07. Not satisficd^{r,vith the compensation cletcrrninccl by} the Land Acquisition Oflicer, claimants^{sought rcfercncc under} Section 18 of the Act for enhancement^{of the compcnsation.By} an order dated 29.08.2017,^{the referenceCourtfixedthe market} value at Rs.3,OoO/- per square^{yard uniformlyfor ail categories} of lands. Aggrieved thereby,^{the present appealis filed by the} Land Acquisition Cfficer.

¶63

Heard Sri D.Kiran,^{learned Assislant(iovernment'} Pleader for the appellant and Sri^{Shaik YousufAli, learned} counsel for the claimants.^{Perusetlthe nlaterialavailableon} record.

¶64

Learned Government Pleader for^Appealshas contended that the reference Court^{ought not to have enhanced} the compensation to Rs.3,00O/-^{per squarey-a-rdfor all the three} categories of tand uniformly without^{there being any cogent} evidence adduced by the claimants.^{It is further contendedthat} the reference Court ought^{not to have adopted the averagerate} in respect of pre-notification as^{well as post notificationsaies} and also erred in not^{grantingany deduction towards} development charges,^{when compensationis frxed for the larger}

¶65

GSD..' & N,I(;P,.I Laas^-17 2018

¶66

extent ol the acquired land basing on the smaller extents covered by the exhibits produced by the claimants.

¶67

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing lor the claimants submits that taking into consideration the potentiality of the land, the reference Court has rightly determined the market value at Rs.3,O00/- per square yard uniformly for all the three categories as the acquired lands are located in urban residential and urban commercial area. Therefore, the counsel sought to sustain the impugned order.

¶68

As seen from the record, before the reference Court, the claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 8 apart from marking five documents as Exs.Al to A5. According to the claimants, the lands are very costly urban residential and urban commercial and have high demand and that the lands are already developed and were made into house plots by the time of acquisition. Basing on Exs.Al to A5 sale transactions, the claimants contend that the acquired lands are similar in nature and potentiality with that of the lands covered by Exs.Al to A5 and that the prevailing market value of the acquired lands at the time of acquisition was Rs.4,0O0/- to Rs.6,O0O/- per square yard. The L.A.O. in his cross-examination has admitted that

¶69

-l

¶70

(;sD,.l & ]l(;1,,.i L:rrrs -l? .!() I lJ

¶71

the a<:quired land is very rlear to^{the comrncrcialarca o[ the} Mandal lleadquarters and that the^{acquired land is :rta} distance of 3O0 meters from the^{main road leadingfrorn} Narsampet to Nekkonda Mandal Headquarters.^{He further} admitted that the acquired^{land is opposite to railu'aystation} and R.T.C. bus station ol'^{Nekkonda lr{andal Headquarters.} Even he has admitted that the^{prevailing market value of thc} acquired land was Rs.2,OOO/- to Rs.3,0O0/-^{per squareyarci.} Ilis further admission was to the effect^{that Exs.A1 to A5- rvhich} show the land value at Rs.3,624/-^{per squareyard, are in the} vicinity of 30O meters of the acquired land.^{Thus, the evidencc} adduced b), the claimants coupled with the admissions^{of R.w.1} goes to show that the acquired lands rvere long back made into house plots and developed into residential and^commercial pu rpose.

¶72

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in C.R.Nagaraja Shettg o. Speclal Land^{Acquisltion OfJicer} and Estate Offtcerl, as the very acquisition^{of the land was for} the purpose of road over bridge, there^{should not be any} deduction towards^{developmentcharges and therefore, the}

¶73

t 2oo9 (1) LACC

¶74

c;sD,.f & I{cP,.t Laas 47 2018

¶75

contention of the learned Assistant Government pleader in this regard does not merit consideration. It is the further contention of the learned Assistant Government pleader that as the acquired land is of larger extent, the reference Court ought not to have relied on Exs.A 1 to A5 as they pertain to smaller extents. In this regard, it is well settled iaw that in the absence of any relevant evidence to the 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 necessary as the entire vicinity is already developed. Therefore, taking into consideration Exs.Al to A5, the reference Court has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,O00/- per square yard, more particularly when the L.A.O. has not denied or disputed the factum of lands covered by Dxs.Ai to AS being situated within the vicinity of 30O meters from the acquired land and the similarity in nature and potentiality. Absolutely, no ground is made out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the reference Court. Therefore, we do not flnd any illegaiity or manifest error in the order passed by the reference

¶76

¶77

¶78

(;st). .t & \tG I,, ., Laas {7 20ltl

¶79

Court. Flencc, the L.A.A.S. is devoid^{of merits and thc satne is}

¶80

liable to bc ciismissed

¶81

Accordingly, the L.A.A.S. stands dismissed confirming the^judgment of the reference Court,^dated 29.O8.2O17 in L.A.O.P.No.816 of 2O09. No^{order as to costs.}

¶82

Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shall^stand

¶83

closed

¶84

SD/-K.SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS

¶85

//TRUE COPY//

¶86

SECTION^OFICER

¶87

To, '1 . The Vl Additional District Judge,^{Mahabubab,ad'} .(with^record) i. +;; bi;b'ih;^{bF i"|. nii"r=ri,nisn courttor ttie Stateof relansana at} Hvderabad. [OUl-] ij'";"eCi; Sri^{nirv xu,,r.Maishettv'Advocate.[^QPUC]} 4. il; dd i"^{5li si#itYousur Ali, AdvocateIoPUCI} A. Two CD^CoPies t). One Spare^CoPY s $-br

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2610912022

JUDGMENT

LAAS.No.47 of 2018

1,j9 51AIE 9
q'
11 \t\ $TL gt
:)oo
<br>,i
-

¶93

DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS

¶94

@Ef*

¶95

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶96

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶97

IVONDAY,THE TWENTY^{SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTWO

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

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

¶100

LAAS.No.47 of 2018

¶101

Between:

¶102

The Land Acquisition^{Officer, (The RevenueDivisional Officer),Mahabubabad}

¶103

...APPELLANT/REFERENCES

¶104

AND

¶105

Bobbala Narayana^{Reddy,S/o.Veladraiah (Died) per LRs CL'No33' 34,,}

¶106

Challa Yakuh Reddy, S/o.Venkat^Reddy'

¶107

Alli Badraiah., S/o.Laxminarayana.

¶108

Alli Rajender., S/o laxminarayana,

¶109

Alli Yadagiri., S/o.Laxminarayana,

¶110

Kongara Prahhakar,^S/o.llaiah,

¶111

Smt Brahrnanapally Soma^{Laxmi,Wo.Anandam,}

¶112

B. Sri Neelagiri Gattaiah,^{S/o.Veeraiah,}

¶113

g. Smt Pulluri Sarojana, Wo.Late Ramaiah,

¶114

'10.Sri Annamaneni Ravinder, S/o.Venkata Rao,

¶115

'l 1.Smt Gundaboina Kanthamma, W/o. Raghavulu,

¶116

l2.Bobbala Ram Mohan Reddy,^{S/o.Veera Reddy,}

¶117

Bobbala Venkat Reddy, S/o.Veera^Reddy,

¶118

1 4. Sri Maroju Somachary, S/o.Manikyam,

¶119

'15.Smt. Yata Mallamma, Wo,Late Rajaiah,

¶120

l6.Valiakath Champakavalli, D/o.Damodar,

¶121

1 7. Sri Vattodial Thomas, S/o.Vargees,

¶122

1 8.Thalluri Hariprasad,^{S/o.Laxmaiah'}

¶123

1 9. Gande Krishna^{L/urthy,S/o.Venkataiah,} 20.Malvala Ramchandrarah.^{S/o.Veeramallu,} 21 . Smi. Kornaraval'i Sharatha.^W/o.Sathish, 22. Sri Nangunuri^{Venkateshwarlu,S/o. Narayana'} 23. Sri Nanlrnari^{Srinivasa Rao' S/o-Bhaskar Rao'} 24. Sri Thal-luri Venkatesharlu,^{S/o. Ramaiah'} 25. Sri Thailuri^{Satyanaryana, S/o.Ramaiah'} . - . 26.Sri Mann"rn^{Koteshwar Rao, S/o. Penchalaiah,} - il .Cn^l^ Chennakeshava^{Reddy,S/o. Narsimha Reddy'} 28. Sri Kota^{NarsimhaRao, S/o.Penchalaiah'} ig. Sri eunOavarjm^{Devender, S/o.Venkataiah,} 50. Sri Gandrakoia^{Laxmaiah, S/o.Chennaiah,} 31 .Sri Gandrakota^{Veeraiah,S/o.Chennaiah,} 32. Smt Gandrakota^{Upendra,Wo.Late Ramulu,} 33.Bobbala Laxmi,^{W/o. Narayana Reddy,} 34.Bobbala Yadava^{Reddy,S/o.NaryaanaReddy,}

¶124

(AllareR/o.Nekkonda(v)and(m)ofNekkondaMandal,WarangalDistrict

¶125

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶126

Appeal Under Section^{54 of L.A. Act 1984 againstthe Judgmentand} Decree of the court^{of the Vl Additional District Judge,Mahabubabadin} LAOP.No.816 of^{2009dated 29.082017.}

¶127

Thisappealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegroundsofappeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower Court andthe material papersin the suit and} upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri D. Kiran, AGP for Appeals, for the Appellantand} of Sri Ajay Kumar^{Madisetty,Advocate for the Respondents'}

¶128

This Court doth Order^{and Decree as follows:}

¶129