THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.326 OF 2003 AND X-OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.1375 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the appellant – Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (LA) Industries, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.04.2003 passed in O.P.No.199 of 1992 by the learned First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). X-Objections are filed by the claimants.

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 based on the requisition made by Defence Estate Officer, the land to an extent of Ac.03.21 guntas situated in T.S.Nos.1/3 and 1/4, Block G, Ward No.276, in old Sy.No.47/1, 47/2, 47/3, 48 to 52 and 53/1 of Kanchanbagh village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad was acquired, for the purpose of expansion of Defence Research Development Laboratory (DRDL).

The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and the same was published in the gazette on 16.03.1990. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has passed an award dated 06.02.1993 and fixed the value @ Rs.153/- 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 First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. The contention of the claimants is that the acquired lands are in well developed area and that they claimed Rs.1500/- per square yard during the award enquiry, but the LAO has determined a meager value and that the acquired land is already a developed area with pucca compound wall together with buildings, outhouses etc., and that the acquired land was surrounded by several well developed colonies like Santhosh Nagar Colony, Rakshapuram Co- operative Housing Colony, Hafeez Baba Nagar Colony and that they have developed the property and used it for running industries and that it has got all the modern amenities like electricity, school, transport facilities etc., They further contended that the LAO failed to award the compensation for the structure and the well as per the estimates.

5. The Reference Court has framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the market value fixed by LAO for the acquired land is inadequate and in sufficient and liable to be enhanced? If so, what is the real market value as on the date of 4(1) notification?

2. Whether the market value determined by the LAO for structures and compensation awarded thereon is in adequate, insufficient and liable to be enhanced? If so, what would be the reasonable market value?

3. Whether the double deduction made by LAO is justified and permissible under law?

4. To what relief?”

6. In support of their claim, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. The respondent got examined DW1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.538/- per square yard, apart from the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate General for the LAO and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the claimants.

8. The learned Advocate General has argued that the LAO has passed a very reasonable order by considering the sales statistics available in the area and has taken the highest sales statistics into consideration while awarding compensation and since the acquired land was for DRDL, 1/3^rd deduction was made by the LAO, which is just and proper. The reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.153/- per square yard to Rs.538/- per square yard for the lands acquire