IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, JJ.
Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Amboji Venkatesh and Another – Respondents
LAAS Nos. 6, 9, 11 and 80 of 2018 and 617 to 620 of 2017
Decided On : 24-10-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues in interconnected appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of land acquisition cases. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. fairness of compensation at issue. (Para 11 , 18) |
| 4. appellant's contention on evidence insufficiency. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. claimants' argument for enhanced compensation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. rejection of evidence based on location differences. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. legal precedent on market value determination. (Para 30 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. final market value fixed and statutory benefits. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 9. conclusion and orders of judgment. (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Since all the Appeals arise out of the common order and decree passed by the Reference Court and the issues involved in all the Appeals are interconnected, all the Appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Smt. D.Madhavi, learned Sanding Counsel appearing for the appellant-Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel on record for the claimants. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. LAAS.Nos.6, 9, 11 and 80 of 2018 are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Hyderabad, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), against the common order and decree, dated 31.08.2017, passed in LAOP.Nos.50 of 2011, 300, 301 and 302 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”), praying this Court to set aside the impugned common order.
4. LAAS.Nos.617, 618, 619 and 620 of 2017 are filed by the claimants/owners of the subject acquired lands, under Section 54 of the Act, against the common order and decree, dated 31.08.2017, passed in LAOP.Nos.50 of 2011, 300, 301 and 302 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court, praying this Court to enhance the market value of the subject acquired lands as fixed by the Reference Court.
5. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Reference Court in the impugned common order.
6. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that a requisition was made by the Estate Officer, HMDA, for acquisition of lands to an extent of Acs.2-28 guntas in Sy.Nos.19 and 20 of Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for formation of Outer Ring Road (for short ‘ORR’), Phase-II; that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspapers on 11.02.2009 and draft declaration under Section
6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on 12.02.2009, in respect of an extent of Ac.0-38 gts of land in Sy.No.19 and an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.20; that as per the survey and sub-division records prepared by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, the land in Sy.No.16 to an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas was also coming in ORR alignment and hence, the addendum for land in Sy.No.16 to an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas was issued; that due to variation, land to an extent of Ac.0-05 guntas in Sy.No.19 was coming under acquisition of ORR; and that, therefore, the amended draft notification under Section 4 (1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in the newspapers on 17.07.2009 and 18.07.2009, respectively, in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas in Sy.No.16, an extent of Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.19 and an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.20 of Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that after conducting enquiry and after following the due procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award vide Proceedings No. L.A./Unit-I/02/2009, dated 30.04.2010, fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre.
7. The details of the compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of the extents of land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer in eac
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Ravi Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P.
Ram Kanwar v. State of Haryanaṣ
Anil Kumar Soti v. State of U.P.
Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamalamma
Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Pehlad Ram & Ors. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.
Fair market value for compensation in land acquisition should prioritize genuine sales; reliance on consent awards must be circumspect unless aligned in circumstances.
Compensation for acquired land must reflect its market value, determined by comparable sales and potentiality, as per the Land Acquisition Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.