HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard Si G.M.Mohiuddin, learned counsel, representing Ms. Ayesha Tasneem, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer.

2. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity ‘the Act’), is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 19.03.2014 passed in respect of L.A.O.P.No.766 of 2013 on the file of the XI 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-I, MCH, land admeasuring 57.59 square yards in premises bearing No.16-10-49, Malakpet, Hyderabad, belonging to the appellants/claimants, was acquired for the purpose of road widening from Nalgonda Cross roads at Malakpet and Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad; that Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Hyderabad District Gazette on 14.08.2007; that Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Hyderabad District Gazette on 16.08.2007; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.A/954/2006, dated 24.01.2008, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,850/- per square yard.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court, which was numbered as LAOP.No.766 of 2013.

5. The said LAOP was clubbed with LAOP.No.765 of 2013 and joint trial was conducted in both the cases. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants /claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Referring Officer, R.W-1-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked.

6. On due appreciation of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before it, the Reference Court dismissed the LAOP filed by the claimants, thereby, confirming the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants inter alia contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents, particularly Exs.A-6 to A-12 filed by the appellants/claimants in proper perspective; that the Reference Court brushed aside the contentions of the claimants based on Exs.A-6 to A-12 on flimsy ground, which is unsustainable in law; that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the fact that the acquired property is a commercial property, situated on the National Highway and surrounded by educational institutions, trading establishments, hospitals, shopping malls, etc., and as such, the acquired land has higher potentiality and fetches higher market value; and therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside, by enhancing the market value of the acquired land, as claimed by the appellants/claimants.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court taking into account the location of the acquired properties and on due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has rightly confirmed the market value of the acquired land as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which requires no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss this Appeal, as being devoid of any merits.

9. In order to assess and fix the market value of the subject acquired land, this Court has undertaken the exercise of examining each and every doc