Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 614 (TS)

Lao Asifabad v. Tudur Vittal

2025-05-02

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Tirumala Devi Eada, J.) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sub-Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.12.2010 passed in O.P.No.58 of 2000 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). X-Objections No.18411 OF 2011 are filed by the claimants. 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 Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaghaznagar sent a proposal for acquisition of lands in Sy.No.90 admeasuring Ac.17-19 cents of Kothapeta village for providing house sites to weaker sections. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 17.02.1996. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.49,000/- per acre and also fixed Rs.2,000/- for one drinking water well and Rs.35,000/- for irrigation well, valued two tiled houses @ Rs.5,000/- each, apart from awarding statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad. 4. The case of the claimants is that the lands in survey Nos.19, 179/1, 50 and 173/1 were sold in the year 1993 which is much earlier to the gazette publication @ Rs.2,43,306/- per acre in survey Nos.50 and 173/1, while the lands in survey Nos.19, 179/1 were sold @ Rs.1,93,600/- per acre and that the acquired land is fertile land which is located in Ward No.14 which is in the heart of Kaghaznagar town having a temple near the locality and that the area is well developed. They further averred that the lands in survey Nos.53 and 54 which are abutting the acquired land were sold out @ Rs.20,400/- for house plot. 5. The Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.49,000/- per acre for acquired land is just and reasonable. If not, what is the just and reasonable market value to be fixed for the acquired land?” 6. At the time of trial, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. If not, what is the just and reasonable market value to be fixed for the acquired land?” 6. At the time of trial, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, PW1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, apart from other statutory benefits and the market value of the drinking water well is fixed @ Rs.10,000/-, agricultural well @ Rs.50,000/- and two tiled houses in the acquired land were valued @ Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer, has preferred the present appeal. 8. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the market value from Rs.49,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for drinking water well and from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for irrigation well and from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- towards tiled houses. His contention is that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered all the sales statistics available as on date and after due enquiry has awarded the said amount fixed by him and that the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation relying on the Division Bench judgment in Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Asifabad v. Madhukar Rambhav Bhaskarwar & others, 1998 (5) ALT Page 468 . Except the said judgment, there was no document made available by the claimants and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the claimants the trial Court was not supposed to enhance the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. 10. The learned counsel for X-objectors has contended that the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the market value @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and that the trial Court has made an error in limiting the enhancement to Rs.2,00,000/-. It is their contention that the Reference Court has relied upon a Division Bench judgment in Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Asifabad (supra), without considering the fact that the said acquisition was pertaining to two decades back and thus, considering the said fact, the reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. It is their contention that the trial Court failed to appreciate Exs.B1 and B2 filed by the claimants. 11. It is their contention that the trial Court failed to appreciate Exs.B1 and B2 filed by the claimants. 11. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Reference Court need any interference? 3. To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1: a) The case of the claimants is that their lands are very fertile lands and are adjacent to survey Nos.50, 173/1, 19 and 179 which were sold at a higher rate of more than Rs.2 Lakhs per acre. They have relied upon Exs.B1 and B2, which are the sale deeds dated 20.07.1994 and 12.07.1994 respectively. The said sale deeds were relied upon by RW1. In his cross examination it was elicited that the acquired land comes under 14th ward of Kaghaznagar and that in that ward there was no sale of land on yard basis. It is further elicited through him that two houses existing in the acquired land were constructed 20 years back and the wells were dug about 15 years back and that he did not file any document to show the value of the houses as Rs.5,00,000/- as contended by them. It is further elicited through him that they did not file any map to show the location of the land and other industries. b) RW2 is the purchaser of a plot admeasuring 250 Sq.yards under Ex.B2 at the price of Rs.500/- per square yard. His evidence is to the effect that his plot is situated towards Eastern side of the land under acquisition and that he also got constructed a house over his plot, which comes under Ward No.3. He further contended that Ward No.3 is adjacent to Ward No.14. However, it is elicited from the evidence of RW2 who is the vendee under Ex.B2 that the said plot comes under Ward No.3 while the present acquisition is in Ward No.14. c) RW4 is the vendor of Exs.B1 and B2, wherein he sold the land @ Rs.500/- per square yard, which would fetch around Rs.2,42,000/- per acre. His contention is that he divided the land into plots and fixed the rate @ Rs.1,00,000/- per plot and in the meantime the Government has acquired his land. c) RW4 is the vendor of Exs.B1 and B2, wherein he sold the land @ Rs.500/- per square yard, which would fetch around Rs.2,42,000/- per acre. His contention is that he divided the land into plots and fixed the rate @ Rs.1,00,000/- per plot and in the meantime the Government has acquired his land. d) A perusal of the award reveals that there are certain sales in survey Nos.19, 179/1, 50, 173/1, but all the sales are for small extent. The rate in almost all the sale transactions is shown to be Rs.1,93,600/- per acre, while the sale in survey No.50 and 173/1 are shown to be Rs.2,42,306/- per acre. e) Thus, it is elicited from the sales statistics reflected in the award proceedings itself that the value of the acquired land was much higher than that is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, the counsel for the claimants has filed a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector (supra) before the trial Court. In the said case the land that was acquired is under Ward No.14 of Asifabad and the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value @ Rs.10,000/- per acre, while the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad has enhanced the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The said orders were confirmed by the High Court. The present acquisition also falls under Ward No.14, thus relying upon the said Judgment, the Reference Court has passed the present award. f) Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order and decree passed by the reference Court and it is opined to be well reasoned and justified. Though the claimants/X-objectors contended that their acquired land would fetch value up to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, no evidence is adduced in this regard before the reference Court. On the other hand, the sale deeds relied upon by them show most of the lands to have been sold @ Rs.1,93,600/- per acre and only two sale transactions reveal that they were sold @ Rs.2,43,000/- and there is ample evidence on record disclosing that the land that was acquired in Ward No.14 was awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre by the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, which was confirmed by the High court. Therefore, the award has been passed on similar lines which does not need any interference. g) The contention of the Government Pleader is also not tenable in this regard. Therefore, the award has been passed on similar lines which does not need any interference. g) The contention of the Government Pleader is also not tenable in this regard. The award proceedings itself disclose the sales statistics which are higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, the reference court was right in enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- based on the evidence on record. Hence, the order of enhancement passed by the reference court is held to be justified. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the reference court do not need any interference. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal and X-Objections No.18411 of 2011 are dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 22.12.2010 passed in O.P.No.58 of 2000 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.