THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.2719 of 2004

JUDGMENT:

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

This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.12.2003 passed in O.P.No.237 of 1987 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

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 land to an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas situated at Sultanvala Village was acquired for the purpose of formation of inner ring road. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 27.04.1983 and the possession was taken over on 07.07.1983. After conducting due enquiry and after considering the sales statistics the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has fixed the rate at 10/- per square yard and after deducting 1/3^rd towards the layout losses, the value of the land was fixed @ 6.67/- per square yard and also fixed the value for structures in the acquired land. 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 II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

4. The case of the claimants is that the LAO has not granted them the entire compensation while deducting 1/3^rd and that the LAO has not considered the prevailing market value which is very high and that their lands fetch more value than that fixed by the LAO.

5. The LAO has filed counter stating that after inspection of the sale deeds, he has correctly fixed the value @10/- per square yard and after deducting the layout lossess, the value was fixed at Rs.6.67/- per square yard and that it is just and proper to award the said compensation to the claimants.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.6.67 ps per square yard is just and proper if not what is the market value to be fixed?”

7. At the time of trial, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.C1 to C4. On behalf of the LAO, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.20/- per square yard and that for the structures they are entitled to 20% over and above the rate fixed by the LAO, apart from awarding the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO.

8. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant. He submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.20/- when the LAO has rightly granted the compensation based on the evidence on record. He has considered all the sales statistics and has fixed the prevalent market value to the acquired lands and thus, the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the same. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the reference Court. However, he fairly conceded that 1/3^rd deduction is permissible only in the cases where the land is acquired for house sites, while in this case the land is acquired for ring road, still the LAO has deducted 1/3^rd

9. Based on the above 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? 10. POINT NO.1:

a) The case of the appellant is that the enhancement made by the reference Court is not just and proper.

b) A perusal of the record reveals