HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This appeal, under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (for short ‘the Act, 2013’) is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metro Rail Project, GHMC, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 04.03.2020 passed in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2017 by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Authority.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition submitted by the Managing Director, Metro Rail Limited, Hyderabad, the land to an extent of 2996.61 Sq.Yards was acquired in different premises from Green lands to Road No.5 of Jubilee Hills for the purpose of curves and bends in Corridor – III of Hyderabad Metro Rail. Notification under Section 11 of the Act was issued on 30.12.013 and the same was published in the gazette on 07.01.2014. The draft declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act was published in gazette on 06.01.2015 and also in the news papers on 29.01.2015. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, after due enquiry has fixed the market value at Rs.45,000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant has made an application for enhancement and the same was referred to Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabad.

4. The case of the claimant before the Authority was that he is the owner of the property bearing plot No.8 admeasuring 1,643 Square Yards situated at Road No.5, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad. His case is that he purchased the property under two different sale deeds and that his land to an extent of 904.17 square yards was affected in the process of acquisition and he also claimed the damages for severing of his land into two bits, damages arising in consequence of acquisition of property as he was compelled to change his residence, a claim for onetime financial settlement and also value of assets attached to the land.

5. Based on the above averments, the Authority has framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the claimant is entitled to ask for enhancement of market value of the land from Rs.45,000/- per Sq.yard as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.60,000/- per Sq.Yard?

2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to ask for Rs.6,00,000/-

towards damages for making the land of Claimant of 1,643 Sq.yards in Plot No.8 into two bits in the process of acquisition of 904.17 Sq.yards?

3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages caused in making the Claimant to shift his residence because of the acquisition?

4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards the value of the things attached to the earth?

5. To what relief?”

6. Before the Authority, the claimant got examined PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Authority has enhanced the value to Rs.60,000/- per square yards, while disallowing the other claims of the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned Government Pleader for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and decree of the Authority is contrary to the evidence placed before it and that the Authority has erred by enhancing the value of the land and that the Court has merely relied upon the evidence lead by the claimants and failed to consider the evidence of RW1. He further argued that the enhancement of land by approximately 25% would have a cascading effect