Partly allowed

V. Venkateswara Rao v. The Special Grade Deputy Collector

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022X-OBJ/39/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and allowed cross objections in part. The Court enhanced the market value of the acquired property from Rs.35,000 to Rs.1,10,000 per square yard and increased the structure value significantly, relying on adjacent sale transactions and the property's commercial nature.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced market value to Rs.1,10,000 per square yard and structure value to Rs.10 Lakhs for LAAS No.59; enhanced structure value to Rs.65 Lakhs for LAAS No.62. Appeals dismissed; cross objections allo

V. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Special Grade Deputy Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERABAd

¶2

FRIDAY .THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶7

LAAS No: 59 OF 2019 & CROSS OBJESTION NO.39 OF 2021

¶8

¶9

&&LAAS NO: 62 OF 2019 & CROSS OBJESTION NO.31 OF 2021

¶10

LAAS NO: 59 OF 2019 & CROSE OBJESTION NO.39 OF 2021

¶11

Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. And Cross Objections under order 41 rule 22 of CPC against the Judgement of degree daled 24-09-2018 made in LAOP No.121 of 2012 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶12

Bctrveen:

¶13

The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisitron, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, l-lyderabad. ...Appellant / Reference Officer Respondent in cross objection

¶14

AND

¶15

V.Venkateshwar Rao, C/o. P. Brahmaiah, Plat No. 501 , Kirthi Apartments, 8-3320, Ellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500073. ...Respondent / Petitioner Cross objector in cross objection

¶16

LAAS NO: 62 OF 2019 & CROSS OBJESTION NO.31 OF 2021

¶17

Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. And Cross Ob.jections under order 41 rule 22 ol CPC against the Judgement of degree dated 24-09-2018 made in LAOP No.1770 of 2017 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶18

Between:

¶19

The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶20

...Appellant / Reference Officer Respondent in Cross Objections

¶21

AND

¶22

V Manemma, Wo V.Balraj Gupta, age 82, years Occ: Housewife, R/o Flat No. A, 501, Kirthi Apartments, H.No.8-3-320, Yellareddyguda, tlyderabad - 500073, Rep by_ her GPA V Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Late Balral Oupta, Age 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o, FIat No.A, 501, Kirthi Apartments, H.No.8-3-320, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500073 ...Respondent / Petitioner Cross Objector in Cross Objection Counsel for the appellant in both Appeals And Respondent in cross objections: Govt. Pleader of Appeals Counsel for the Respondents in both appeals And cross objectors in both cross objections: V. Rajashekar Reddy

¶23

The court delivered the following :COMMON JUDGMENT

¶24

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEV!

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HCN'BLE SMT. JUSTICE A{.G- PRIYADARS!}.II

¶27

L.A.A.S.Nos. 59 of 2019 and X.OBJ.No.39 of 2021

¶28

And

¶29

L.A.A.S.Nos. 67 of 2A19 and X.OBJ.No.31 of 2071

¶30

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi)

¶31

L.A.A.S.Nos.59 and 62 of 2019 are preferred by the Land Acquisitior: Officer aggrieved by the oiders and decrees, both dated 24.09.2018 rnade in L.A.O.P.Nos.121 o! 2012 and 1770 of 2017 respectivety, on the fite of the XXV Additional Chiei -iudge, City Civit iourt, l-lyderabad (for short "the reference Court"). Chatlenging the very same oi-ders and decrees, the claimants therein have fited cro:s objections Nos.39 and 31 of 7021 respectivety. By the impugned orders, the reference Court has enhanced the market vatue of the acquired property from Rs.15,000i^- to Rs.35,000/- per square^yard in both the impugned crders white confirmlng the structure vatue as awarded by the L.A.O.

¶32

Both the cases arise out of the acquisition of Ayodhya Hotel situated in premises Nos.11-5-425 and 11-5-427 situated at Mattepatty ViLtage, Asifnagar A4andat, Hyderabad District. Part of the acquired property i.e., admeasuring 36.24 square yards is the subject matter \ of L.A.A.S.No.62 of 20iland^the other^part of thc acquired^property

¶33

.-I

¶34

2 (iSI)..1 and \l(iP..J I-aas^j(r aud (rl 1019

¶35

i.e., admeasuring 212.85 square^yards is the subject matter of L.A.A.S.No.59 of 7019. For the^purpose of widening of the^junction in order to ease the traffic congestion from Lakdikaput to Ayodhya junction, the L.A.O. has acquired the subject property by issuing draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act^(for short "the Act"), dated 30.10.2007 fotlowed by draft dectaration under Section 6 of the Act. After conduct'ing due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has^passed an award on 13.02.2008 fixing the market vatue of the acquired property at Rs.15,000/-^per square yard. The structure vatue was fixed at Rs.'l ,30,948.00 for part of the buitding consists of 36.24 square^yards and Rs.33,04,917 l- for^part of the buitding consists of 21;l-.85 square^yards. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants fi[ed protest petition and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. The reference Court, by the impugned orders has enhanced the market value of the acquired property from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.35,000/-^per square yard while confirming the structure vatue as awarded by the L.A.O. Aggrieved thereby, the^present appeats are fited by the^Land Acquisition Officer and the Cross Objections^{by the claimants.}

¶36

I GSI). .l and MGI). J l.aas 59 and 62 2019

¶37

Heard learned Government Pteader for Appeats and Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behatf of the ctaimants. Perused the material avaitable on record.

¶38

Learned Government Pteader main[y contended that the reference Court without there being any basis or cogent evidence has erroneously enhanced compensation from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.35,000/per square yard. lt is further contended that the properties covered by Exs.R2 to R8 are residentiaI properties which were sotd at Rs.25,000/- per square yard. Atthough, Ex.R5 reftects that the tand was sotd at Rs,89,777 l- per square yard, the reference Court has rightty discredited the said transaction in view of the fact that the land sotd therein was very smatl extent i.e., nine square yards. However, since the acquired property is commerciaI one, the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation more than Rs.30,000/- per square yard. As regards the vatue fixed for the structures, it is contended that the L.A.O. has rightty fixed the value since the amount of rents being fetched by the buitding have not been proved by any document or atteast by income tax returns. Therefore, the reference Court has rightty uphetd the said vatue fixed by the L.A.O.

¶39

.1 CiSI). .l and \4(il']..l Laas 5() and^(r2 l0l9

¶40

On the otherhand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing^on behalf of the claimants contended that the^property itsetf is located at the busy commercial^junction wherein hotel business was being^run by name "Ayodhya Hote[". The^property was thus commercia[ property abutting to two side doub[e roads. The 1.A.0. has fixed the vatue at Rs.15,000/- per square yard based on the sate transaction covered by Ex.R5 but the property therein is situated about 2 % kms., away from the acquired tand which is in a by-lane and moreover it^is a residential property. lt is further contended that the^property covered by Ex.R7 was adjacent to the acquired^property even as^per the admission of R.W.1 in his cross-examination. The^property therein was sotd at Rs.89,777/-per square^yard. Since the acquired property was a corner property having two side doubte roads, it would definitety fetch at least doubte the vatue mentioned in Ex. R7. Therefore, the reference Court ought to have enhanced the market vatue at Rs.1,50,000/- per square yard. Merety because Ex.R7^is covered by nine square yards, the sate transaction ought not to^have been discarded by the L.A.O. ln this regard, retying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ali Mohommed Beigh ond others v. State af Jommu and Koshmirt the learned Senior Counsel^has contended^that even if transaction covers a smatl extent which is comparabte to the

¶41

'^{lzotz1 a sccz tz}

¶42

¶43

(iSl). .l and \4GP..l Laas 59 and 6l l0l9

¶44

acquired [and, it can be relied on to determine the market vatue. As regards the structures, it is contended that the buitding consists of ground + four ftoors having more than 42 lodging rooms and restaurant apart from three commerciat shops and therefore, for the entire property, the reference Court ought to have awarded Rs.'1,00,00,000/- keeping in mind that the ctaimants were forced to ctose down their hote[ business thereby deprived of livetihood.

¶45

As seen from the record the acquired property is the buitding consists of ground+4 floors wherein the claimants used to run hotel business by name "Ayodhya Hotet". Even as per the admission of R.W. l coupled with Ex.R9 sketch, the acquired property is commercial one, a corner property having two side double roads located at a busy^junction at Lakdi-ka-poot. One of the owners of the property i.e., claimant in L.A.O.P.No. l21 of 7012, in his evidence as P.W.1 categoricatty deposed that by the time of acquisition of property, the ctaimants used to run a hotel business. Even as per Exs.R2, R3 and R8 the [and which is residential in nature and 7 % kms. away from the acquired land that too in a by-[ane, was sold not tess than Rs.25,000/- per square yard. Therefore, even as per their own evidence, the L.A.O. has not justified in fixing the market vatue at Rs.15,000/- per square yard. Furthermore, as seen from the sate deed bearing No.2737 of 2006 which has been marked as Ex.R5 in

¶46

¶47

(iSl). .l and MCil)..1 Laas 59 antl 62 l0 i 9

¶48

both the cases, an extent of nine square yards was sotd at Rs.89,777 l- per square yard. The said sale transaction was ignored by the reference Court merety because onty smal[ extent of nine square yards was sotd. But the reference Court has lost the sight of the fact that the land covered by Ex.R5 is adjacent to the acquired land.

¶49

ln Ali hlohommed Beigh (supra), the Apex Court has categorica[y hetd that "When the lands ore more or less situoted nearby ond when the acquired lands ore identical ond similar ond the acquisition is for the some purpose, it would not be proper to discriminote between the land owners unless there are strong reosons, "

¶50

ln the instant case atso, as per the evidence adduced by the parties, the acquired property is adjacent to the land covered by Ex.R5. Such being the case, the Reference Court is not justified in rejecting the sale transaction covered by Ex.R5 merely because a smatt extent of [and was sotd under Ex.Rs. Furthermore, the acquired land is more strategicatty situated than the land in Ex.R5 because the acquired property is a corner property having two side double roads. lt is common knowtedge that the land having frontage on the highway woutd definitety have better vatue than tands farther away from highway. Therefore, as rightty contended by the tearned

¶51

1 (iSI)..1 and ,1(il'. .l [-aas-5 9 and 6]_1019

¶52

Senior Counsel for the c[aimants, the acquired property woutd definitety fetch more than Rs.89,777l- per square yard, which was the sate consideration in Ex. R5.

¶53

ln Bhule Rom v. Union of lndio2 the Apex Court has categoricatty heLd that "the market volue of the land is to be determined taking into consideration the existing use of the land, geogrophical situation/ locotion of the lond olong with the advontages/ disodvontages i.e., from the distance from the Nationol or State Highway or o rood situated within a developed areo."

¶54

'10. ln the instant case, admittedty, the acquired property is located at busy^junction having two side double roads. The very purpose of acquisition is to ease the traffic congestion by widening the^junction, this itself speaks the potentiatity of the acquired property. By the time of acquisition, the acquired property was being used by the ctaimants for running hotel business.

¶55

lt is also came on record that the property consists of 400 square yards and though the tand acquired is onty 250 square yards i.e., the remaining 150 square yards, which became triang[e shape and unfit for any use, the same has been kept vacant as the ctaimants were forced to ctose down their hotel business being run by them for

¶56

'(zot+)^{l scc :or}

¶57

(iSD. .l and N4(iP. .l [.aas 59 and^(r2 2019

¶58

¶59

the tast 4-5 decades, thereby they were deprived of their tivetihood. For the reasons stated above and taking into account the consideration paid under Ex.R5, this Court is inctined to enhance the market vatue of the acquired property from Rs.35,000/- to Rs. l,10,000/- per square yard.

¶60

Coming to the vatue fixed by the L.A.O. for the structures, as observed above, the property consists of ground + 4 ftoors, having a restaurant and 3 commercial shops. The buitding atso consists of 42 lodging rooms. That being the case, defin.itety the property might have fetched a considerable rent being it situated in a strategic location. Even as per the own admission of R.W..l , the acquired property is having main.road on two sides which is substantiated by Ex.R9 sketch. The factum of acquisition of the property for widening of the junction itself shows that the acquired property is the commertial one which would fetch more rent. Since it is not denied that the ctaimants were running a hotet therein by name Ayodhya Hotet, merety because no rental receipts or income tax returns were fited by the ctaimants it cannot be a ground to undervatue the structures. Therefore, this Court is inctined to atlow the cross objections by enhancing the vatue of the structures from Rs.1,30,948/- to Rs.10,00,000/- in L.A.A.S.No.59 of 2019 and from Rs.33,O4,917 l- to Rs.65,00,000/- in L.A.A.S.No.62 of 2019.

¶61

¶62

9 (iSD. .l and ivl( il']. .l Laas 59 and 6l l0l9

¶63

ln the resutt, whi[e dismissing^{theappeatsfited by the L.A.O.,} the cross objections fited by the ctaimants^{are altowed in part} enhancing the market^vatue of the^{acquired propertyfrom} Rs.35,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-^{per squareyard and vatue of the} structures from Rs.1,30,948/- to^{Rs. 10,00,000/-in L.A.A.5.No.59 of} 20'19 and from Rs.33,04,917/'to Rs.65,00,000i-^{in L.A.A.S.No.62of} 2019. The ctaimants are a[so entitled to atl other^{statutorybenefits.} There shatl be no order as to costs.

¶64

Pending miscetlaneous applications, if any,^{sha[[ standctosed.}

¶65

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIST R //TRUE COPY//

To,

lr,/

SECTION OFFICER

The XXV Additionat Chief Judge, City Civit Cou(, Hyderabad

¶71

fwo CCs to Gp FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶72

3 One CC to SRt. VONJART RAJA SHEKAR REDDy Advocate [OpUC]

¶73

Two CD Copies

¶74

One Spare Copy

¶75

HIGH COURT

¶76

DATED:16t0912022

¶77

1 !\e s ilE:-.r
-^ , t t
i+
21 ICT 1Wn

¶78

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶79

LAAS NO: 59 OF 2019 & CRO SS OBJESTION NO.39 OF 2021

¶80

¶81

LAAS NO: 62 OF 2019 & CROSS OBJESJTON NO.31 OF 2021

¶82

Dismissing both the appeals

¶83

and allowing both cross objections in part without cost

¶84

:
av

¶85

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶86

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶89

¶90

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶91

LAAS NO: 62 OF 2019 & CR OSS OBJE sTtoN No.31 0F 2021

¶92

Between:

¶93

The Special .Deputy collector Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶94

...Appellant / Reference Officer

¶95

Respondent in cross objection

¶96

AND

¶97

V.Manemma, Wo. V,Balraj Gupta, age 82. years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat No. A, 501, Kirthi Apartments, H No.8-3-320 ydilareddyguda, UyOeraiaO _ SOiOZS, Rep by^her GPA VVenkateshwara Rao. S/o Late'Satraj Glpta. Age SS vlir.. 9.g^{Business, R/o, Ftat No A, 50i, Kirthi Aparimenii, '} U-f.t".A-5_1)0, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500073

¶98

...Respondent / Petitioner

¶99

Cross Objector in Cross Objection

¶100

Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. And cross ob.iections under 9r-d^"141^{rule 22 ol cPCagainst the Judgement of degree dared24-og-2018} made in LAoP No.121 oI 2012 on the file of the XXV Addition;t chief Judge, city civit court, Hyderabad

¶101

This appeal and cross objection coming on for hearing upon perusing the grounds of appeal, and cross objection and material papers in the petition and u-pon h"earing the arguments of the Government preader for Appeals for the appellani in LeRdano respondent in cross objection and of sri V.Rajashekar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent in LAAS and cross objector in cross objection.

¶102

This court doth order and degree as follows:

¶103

That the appeal filed by the t- A O . be and hereby is demised and the cross objections fired by the craimant be and hereby is afiowed in part.

¶104

2 fnat the market value of structures be and hereby is enhanced from Rs 33.04.9171 to Rs 65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty five Lakhs onty)

¶105

That the claimants be and hereby are entifled to all other statutory benefits.

¶106

4 That the there be no order as to cost in the appeal and cross objections

¶107

SD/.K.SRINIVASA R o JOINT REGIST R

¶108

S ECTION OFFICER

¶109

't o,

¶110

The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶111

Two CD Copies

€rs

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610912022

DECREE

LAAS NO: 62 OF 20'19 & CROSS OBJES TloN NO.31 0F 2021

¶117

Dismissing the appeal

¶118

And allowing cross objections in part without cost

¶119

¶120

IN THE HGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶121

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶122

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶123

LAAS NO: s9 OF 2019 & CROSS OBJESTION N o.39 0F 2021

¶124

Between:

¶125

The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad tVlunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶126

...Appellant / Reference Officer

¶127

Respondent in cross objection

¶128

AND

¶129

V.Venkateshwar Rao, C/o P.Brahmaiah,^plat No. 501, Kirthi Apartments, 8-3320, Ellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500073

¶130

Cr."".;::il::::;::;:

¶131

Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. And cross obiections under order 41 rule 22 of cPC against the Judgement of degree dated 24-09-2018 made in LAOPNo.121 of 2012onthefiteoftheXXVAdditional chief Judge,citycivit court, Hyderabad

¶132

This appeal and cross objection coming on for hearing upon perusing the grounds of appeal, and cross objection and material papers in the petition and upon hiaring the arguments of the Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant in LAAS and respondent in cross objection and of Sri V.Rajashekar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent in LAAS and cross objector in cross objection. .

¶133

This court doth order and degree as follows:

¶134

'1 . That the appeal filed by the L.A.O., be and hereby is demised and the cross objections filed by the claimanl be and hereby is allowed in part.

¶135

a That the market value acqurred property be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.35,0001 to Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand only) per square yard and value of structures from Rs.1,30,g48/- to Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

¶136