HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.NOs.305 OF 2018 AND 99 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) are filed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed in L.A.O.P.No.345 of 2012 by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the reference Court’).

2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same order and decree passed by the reference Court, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the land to an extent of Ac.166.26 Sq.yards was acquired for the purpose of road widening for metro rail. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 19.09.2008 and the possession was taken over on 30.01.2011. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has granted Rs.24,711/- per square yard.

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 XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

5. The case of the claimants is that out of the premises bearing municipal No.4-1-689 an extent of 166.26 Sq.yards together with compound wall and part of the structures have been acquired by LAO for the purpose of road widening for metro rail and that the said property is abutting main road and is in the heart of Hyderabad City close to many Government offices, schools and commercial buildings. Thus, the acquired property has high potentiality for commercial activity and is in a developed area and is adjacent to Vikranth Commercial Complex and is nearby Mozam Jahi market. Thus, their contention is that the market value of the acquired land is around Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per square yard and Rs.2,000/- to 2,500/- per square feet for compound wall. But the LAO has granted a meager amount of Rs.24,711/- per square yard and Rs.1,05,349/- for the compound wall.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed counter denying all the contentions of the claimants, except admitting the facts with regard to the notification and passing of the award.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the reference Court has framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the compensation amount awarded by LAO is reasonable and in accordance with the market value?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation amount, if so how much?

3. To what relief?”

8. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.35,000/- per Sq.yard, apart from awarding the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred LAAS No.305 of 2018, while the Special Deputy Collector has preferred LAAS No.99 of 2019.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Government Pleader for the Special Deputy Collector.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the sale deed executed under Ex.A1 is considered by the reference Court wherein the land was sold @ Rs.45,000/- per square yard but has awarded Rs.35,000/- per square yard to the acquired land. He further argued that the acquired land is abutting the main road and that there is no reason for the reference Court to reduce the value, he therefore prayed to consider Ex.A1 and he further argued that the reference Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and has discarded Ex.A1 without there being any reason. At