In land acquisition cases, when determining market value, the court must consider the prime location and commercial potential of the land, and arbitrary reduction of the valuation from the established Registrar's benchmark without evidence is unsustainable.

JUDGMENT:

The instant Appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants challenging the order and decree in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2003 dated 26.07.2017 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. For brevity and better understanding, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, present appeal arises out of reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, ‘Act’) for fixation of the fair and just reasonable market value.

4. It is stated by the claimant that the Government at the request of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) for the purpose of road widening from the Dr. Ambedkhar Statue to Katta Maisamma Temple at Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, acquired an extent of 118 square yards of property in T.S.No.8/2, Block-E, Ward No.57 of Gaganmahal Village, Himayathnagar Mandal, and accordingly, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 21.10.2000. After service of notices on the interested persons, the enquiry was conducted and award was passed by the LAO by proceedings No.A/463/2000, dated 17.09.2002 and fixed the market value for the land at Rs.2607/- per square yard in respect of the claimant herein and fixed the amount for the structures as recommended by the Engineering Department of the MCH and accordingly paid the compensation, however, the same was received by the claimant under protest to the extent of compensation to the land and as such, claimant filed an application to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of fair and just reasonable market value to the learned Reference Court i.e., I Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, which has registered the case and numbered as LAOP No.6 of 2003.

5. The claimant filed the claim statement before the learned Reference Court stating that the LAO fixed a very meagre compensation, though the actual market value of his premises can be fetched for an amount of Rs.30 lakhs along with 30% solatium and also to award damages of Rs.10 lakhs. Further, it is stated that the claimant was running a hotel business in the said premises under the name and style of ‘Style Care Tank Bund’ and was earning income of Rs.5 lakhs per annum, and that the market value in the vicinity by the time of acquisition was at Rs.25,000/- per square yard and even as per the records of the Sub-Registrar of Chikkadpally, the market value of the land was at Rs.9,000/- per square yard and contended that the premises can fetch double of the value entered in the records of the Sub-Registrar as it was located in a middle of Hyderabad City abutting to the main road.

6. Further, the claimant also stated that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was paid towards the land and incurred to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which was spent registration charges of sale deed and further, he spent an amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards renovation and decoration of the hotel business. Thus, in all, the claimant alleged to have spent Rs.12 lakhs apart from investing his personal efforts and his entire family was depending on the said hotel business and the claimant prayed for at least to grant Rs.15,000/- per square yard though the prevailing rate in the vicinity was at Rs.25,000/- per square yard with other statutory benefits.

7. The respondent-referring authority has not filed any counter-affidavit, and the learned Reference Court was pleased to frame the following points for determination:

1) Whether the market value fixed by the LAO is very low?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for