Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 265
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, JJ
The Special Deputy Collector – Appellant
Versus
Topaz Welfare Association Retd – Respondent
LAAS/86/2016
The market value of acquired land must be just and reasonable, reflecting its potential in the open market, and cannot solely rely on Market Value Certificates without substantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 6, 18, and 30 - Appeal against enhancement of market value of acquired land - Reference Court enhanced value from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.17,600/- per square yard based on Market Value Certificates, which were found unsustainable - The court determined the value at Rs.12,000/- per square yard after considering commercial usage and location. (Paras 11, 16, 18, 19)
(B) Market Value Determination - The market value must reflect what the land can fetch in the open market and must be just, adequate, and reasonable based on prevailing conditions. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The respondent's land was acquired for road widening, and the Reference Court initially awarded Rs.17,600/- per square yard based on certain certificates. The Land Acquisition Officer appealed against this enhancement. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The enhancement based on Market Value Certificates was unsustainable, and the court fixed the market value at Rs.12,000/- per square yard, while other benefits under the Act remained unchanged. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issue was the appropriateness of the market value enhancement based on the evidence presented, particularly the reliance on Market Value Certificates. (Paras 7, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while certificates can be considered, they must be substantiated with credible evidence, and the market value must reflect fair market conditions. (Paras 11, 16)
Result: Appeal disposed of, modifying the compensation to Rs.12,000/- per square yard.
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant.
2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (for brevity ‘the Act’), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.12.2014 passed in O.P.No.1174 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court”).
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-V, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the property bearing Municipal No.6-3- 883/A/13 admeasuring 456.40 square yards in ‘Topaz’ building Complex, Amrutha Hills, Hyderabad, which belongs to the respondent-claimant was acquired for the purpose of road widening from Panjagutta to Rajiv Gandhi Statue Main Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad; that Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 25.02.2005; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Official Gazette on 25.07.2005; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award, dated 16.03.2006, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.6,000/- per square yard.
4. As the respondent/claimant did not furnish the documents showing its ownership over the subject acquired property, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter to the competent Civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.1174 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court.
5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined, but no documents were marked.
6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court held that the respondent/claimant is the owner of the subject acquired property and hence, it is entitled to compensation for the same. Further, the Reference Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.6,000/- per square yard to Rs.17,600/- per square yard, apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the respondent/claimant. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land based on Ex.A-7-Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar and as such, he sought to set aside the impugned order.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that taking into account the location of the acquired land being prime area, the Reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation for the acquired land and therefore, there are no merits in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In this Appeal, no ground is raised challenging the impugned order of the Reference Court holding the respondent/claimant as owner of the subject acquired property and therefore, the same is not adjudicated by this Court.
10. The respondent/claimant has got marked as many as ten documents viz., Exs.A-1 to A-10 before the Reference Court in support of its claim for enhancement of market value of the subject acquired land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Among the said documents, Exs.A-6 to A-8 are mainly relied upon by the respondent/claimant for enhancement of market value of the acquired land.
11. It is relevant to note that Exs.A-7 and A-8 are Market Value Certificates issued by the Sub-Registrar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder the market value of the land was shown a
