Smt.A.Bharathi

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT.A.BHARATHI,

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989,

CUM VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

FRIDAY ON THIS 28 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

ARB.O.P. No. 241 of 2018

Between:

1.Sama Suresh Reddy, S/o.Sama Laxma Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business.

2.Sama Suman Reddy, S/o.Sama Laxma Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business.

3.Sama Shyam Sunder Reddy, S/o.Sama Laxma Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business.

(All are R/o.2-1-67, Upparpally, Rajendranagar Circle, R.R.District).

...Petitioners.

And

Raja Rajeshwari Properties Pvt., Ltd. Having its registered office at H.No.2-2-24/A/46, above State Bank of Hyderabad, 3rd floor, DD Colony, Baghamberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana, Rep. by its Director, Smt M. Rajeshwari, W/o. B. Ramakrishna, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Hyderabad.

....Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Venkatesh, Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, Sri M. Jaya Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

This Petition is filed U/Sec.9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking ad-interim injunction against the Respondent from entering into petition schedule property, not to carry out any development activities and not to change the nature of petition schedule property.

2

2) Brief averments of the Petition are that:

Petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of Ac.15.00 gts in

Sy.Nos. 45, 46/AA & 47/AA at Upparapally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,

R.R.District having succeeded from their father Sama Laxam Reddy and the names of petitioners got mutated in the revenue records and obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their names. The petitioners are intended to develop their land into house plots to generate income for their family necessities, the Respondent herein along with M/s. Skill Promoters firm, approached the petitioners and represented that they are ready to take up the project for development of suit schedule land and believing the representation of respondent firm, the petitioners entered into Memorandum of Understanding

Dt.13-04-2012 for development of schedule property into residential houses, but the Respondent did not act upon as per the terms of MOU Dt.13-04-2012. On further representation of Respondent, as it completed many prestigious projects successfully, the petitioners agreed and entrusted their land for development to the Respondent firm and entered into regd. Development Agreement cum

General Power of Attorney (Doc No.589 of 2014 Dt.21-02-2014) on the terms and conditions mentioned therein that M/s. Skill Promoters were part of the project. The Petitioners executed the Development agreement cum GPA Doc

No.589/2014, Dt.21-02-2014 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.9.20 gts out of

Ac.15.00 gts. It was an agreement and understanding between the petitioners and Respondent that time is essence of contract as the petitioners were in dire need of money. That ever since the execution of Development Agreement, the respondent has been continuously violating the terms of agreement and harassing the petitioners herein and caused grave mental agony to the petitioners apart from causing loss of income to the petitioners.

3

3.It is further contended that as per the terms agreed between the parties, Respondent was obligated to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,00,000/- (four crores fifty lakhs only) towards interest free refundable deposit immediately on entering into the Development Agreement, however the respondent had paid only

Rs.27,00,000/- till date to the petitioners and committed breach of terms. The

Respondent also entered into MOU Dt.24-02-2014 as per which the Respondent was obliged to pay further amount of Rs.4,70,00,000/- (Rupees Four crores

Seventy Lakhs only) to them towards goodwill as the agricultural operations stopped and they are unable to get income on the petition schedule property to eke-out livelihood and as per terms of agreement, petitioners have fulfilled their obligations, co-operated in every way to ensure that the suit schedule property is developed into house plots. However the respondent failed to complete the work as per the terms of agreement, but failed to commence the work as per the terms agreed. Apart from the violations and breaches, the Respondent firm had gone to the extent of filing Arbitration Petition vide Arb.O.P. No.1137/2016 with all false allegations to evade its obligations against the petitioners and alleged that the petitioners are interfering with the developmental activities when no such activity was happening at the time of filing the OP. It is further contended that the Respondent tried to make commencement of work after a gap of more than four years only after the CMA was adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court and anticipating the termination of Development Agreement by the petitioners herein.

4.It is further contended that the respondent without having obtained valid permission as on the date of filing of Arb.OP No.1137/2016 on the file of this court and alleged in the petition therein that the petitioners herein are interfering with the developmental activities carrying by the Respondent firm. It is established that the Respondent has started developmental works without 4 obtaining any valid permit. It is further contended that this court was pleased to allow Arb.OP No.1137/2016, Dt.19-08-2017. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners herein preferred CMA No.1291/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the same was disposed off with a direction to invoke arbitration proceedings within two weeks, failing which the order granted by this court shall ceased to exist. It is further contended that the Respondent has not complied with the terms of MOU and DGPA and has not even attempted to develop the property, on the other hand, the respondent had made false allegations and caused severe hardship to the Petitioners. As per agreement,

Respondent is required to get valid permission from authorities. The petitioners gave possession to Respondent as per the agreement, but the Respondent did not complete the houses, due to the breaches of respondent, petitioners are put to grave financial loss and they have also lost rents that they would have legally been entitled for all these years and therefore, they are entitled to recover all these amounts from the Respondent. In fact, the respondent was liable to develop the property within 30 months however with its failure to do so, the very agreement has come to an end with efflux of time and the petitioners terminated the Development agreement cum General Power of Attorney Dt.21-04-2014 bearing Doc No.589/2014 and also the memorandum of understanding Dt.24- 04-2014, as such the act of respondent is illegal and against the terms agreed between the parties.

5.It is further contended that as per clause 45 of Development

Agreement cum General Power of attorney, Dt.21-04-2014, the disputes are to be referred for arbitration and the same reads as follows:

“All the disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be initially resolved by mutual discussions among the developer and landowners or the nominated representatives of both parties. In case of disputes not 5 resolved by mutual discussions, the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The disputes shall be referred to mutually agreed arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding and final on both the parties”.

6.It is further contented that despite terminating the development agreement Dt.21-02-2014, the Respondent is trying to carryout works and develop the petition schedule land as per its whims and fancies. Therefore it is just and necessary to restrain the Respondent firm from entering/ developing/ changing the nature of petition schedule property as otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship. When the petitioners asked the respondent not to enter the petition schedule property and to stop the developmental activities in the light of termination of DGPA, respondent gave evasive replies and continued the works. Though the Petitioners have given ample opportunities, the Respondent did not mend its ways, hence the petitioners are left with no other alternative except to approach the Court.

Hence the petition.

7.The Respondent filed counter, admitting the fact that their firm entered into Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney in the month of April, 2012 and again on 21-02-2014 to develop the land into group housing with terms and conditions and their firm agreed to pay Rs.4.50 crores to petitioners as interest free returnable deposit and they entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding Dt.21-02-2014 with terms mentioned therein.

Out of the same, the Respondent firm paid Rs.3.00 crores to the Petitioners through cheques, Demand Drafts and cash as mentioned in MOU and agreed to pay balance of Rs.1.50 crores after obtaining building permission from the

GHMC and after commencement of construction work as mutually agreed by both the Respondent and petitioners. The petitioners failed to en-cash Rs.45 6 lakhs and Rs.55 lakhs paid to them under cheque bearing Nos.394020 & 394022 of SBH, DD Colony. In pursuant to the development agreement, the

Respondent firm paid Rs.2,54,75,065/- to the GHMC for building permission.

Apart from that the Respondent firm spent Rs.50.00 lakhs towards preparatory and incidental works. While the works are going, the petitioners are attempting to interfere with the ground level works over petition schedule property, upon which, the Respondent firm got issued legal notice Dt:07-09-2016 to the

Petitioners calling upon them to adhere to terms of Regd DGPA Dt:21-02-2014 and to cooperate with the Respondent for smooth execution of the project or else to initiate arbitration proceedings for sorting out issues or grievances if any from the petitioners side through arbitrator. Along with the notice the

Respondent sent DD Nos.410698, 410699 and 410700 all Dt:07-09-2016 to the petitioners for Rs.25.00 lakhs, Rs.25.00 lakhs and Rs.45.00 lakhs drawn on

Indian Bank since the petitioners not en-cashed cheque bearing Nos.394020 & 394022 of SBH, DD Colony. Though the Petitioners received Notice, but remained silent without giving any reply.

8.It is further contended that on 02-11-2016 the Petitioners and their henchmen tried to stop the labourers employed by the respondent firm to do works in the petition schedule property. Due to intervention of Petitioners, the

Respondent and their henchmen left the site and threatened their men with dire consequences. The Respondent firm have no issues or disputes with the

Petitioners in connection with terms of DGPA, Dt:21-02-2014. If at all the

Petitioners are having any issues or grievances with the Respondent Firm, they are at liberty to invoke clause 45 of DGPA, Dt:21-02-2014 to sort out the same through arbitration. The Respondent company is always ready and willing to settle issues if any with the intervention of arbitration whereas the Petitioners are not coming forward to settle the issues. It is further contended that as the 7 petitioners and their henchmen frequently caused intervention with the work being carried out by Respondent, Respondent herein was compelled to file

Arbitration OP No.1137/2016 on the file of this court U/Sec.9 of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 to restrain the petitioners herein, their men, agents etc from interfering with the development work over the petition schedule property.

The petitioners herein filed their counter denying the contents made in the OP, after elaborate argument and considering the documents filed along with the OP, this court allowed the OP by Judgment and Decree Dt.19-08-2017.

9.It is further averred in the counter that aggrieved by the said

Judgment and Decree Dt.19-08-2017, the petitioners herein approached the

Hon’ble High Court by preferring CMA No.1291/2017 and on receipt of notice

from the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent firm filed counter to vacate the interim order Dt.15-12-2017 and the Hon’ble High Court vide order Dt.01-02- 2018 disposed off the CMA upholding the order of this court directing the

Respondent firm to initiate steps for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In compliance of the Court order Respondent have invoked arbitration clause with in time through legal notice Dt.08-02-2018, for which the petitioners did not give any reply, hence the Respondent filed

Arbitration Application No.42/2018, Dt.03-04-2018 U/Sec.11 (6) before the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the order granted is still in

force. Respondent contended that the date of filing the counter in CMA,

Respondent firm had spent more than Rs.7.50 crores, which includes payments made to the petitioners and also payment made to the Statutory Authorities for obtaining building permission and in implementation of terms of MOU, Dt.21-02- 2014, Respondent paid an amount of Rs.1.50 crores through Demand Drafts, thus the respondent spent more than Rs.9.00 cores. As per Clause 45 of DGPA 8

Dt.21-02-2014, Respondent has invoked the arbitration clause to decide the following issues:

i. Whether the contract is irrevocable and the possession is delivered to the developer as per DAGPA, can the land owners interfere with the developmental activities?

ii. Whether the land owners having received an amount of

Rs.2,76,00,000/- towards interest free refundable deposit amount is justified in denying the same?

10.It is further contended that in spite of receipt of said notice, petitioners did not move an inch to cooperate with the Respondent. It is submitted that until now, the petitioners have neither nominated any arbitrator nor has given their consent to the arbitrator nominated by the respondent. By doing so, the petitioners have thus forfeited their right to appoint an arbitrator.

Respondents constrained to file Arbitration Application No.42/2018 on 03-04- 2018 for appointment of an Arbitrator, notices were sent to the petitioners and they made their appearance in the case through their counsel. The petitioners herein through their counsel issued a termination notice Dt.24-04-2018 calling upon the respondent to execute a cancellation deed canceling the DAGPA

Dt.21-02-2014 within seven days, without following the directions of the Hon’ble

High Court in CMA No.1291/2017. The said notice was served on the respondent on 26-04-2018. Respondent replied the termination notice even

before the expiry of seven days period given in the termination notice, petitioner

filed the present OP U/Sec.9 of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 on 27-04- 2018, which seems to have been prepared simultaneously, therefore they are no bonafides on part of the petition, they are not entitled for equitable relief of injunction and liable to be dismissed.

9

11.It is further contended by the Respondent that the termination notice is illegal and untenable as there is no clause in the DAGPA or MOU even Dt.21- 02-2014 enabling the petitioners to terminate the DAGPA, hence the termination is contrary to the terms of agreement. It is further contended that the present petition is not maintainable as the order in Arb OP No.1137/2016, Dt.19-08-2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Hight court in CMA No.1291/2017 and in Arb OP No.1137/2016, this court granted interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein, their men, agents and persons claiming through them from interfering with the development works and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. The said order categorically stated that the petitioners are restrained from interfering with development work. Now the petitioners has filed the present petition, seeking contrary order to the above said orders by suppressing the real facts, which is abuse of process of law. The petitioners approach this court with unclean hands by suppressing several material facts, hence the petitioners are not entitled to equitable relief of injunction from this court. Further the present petition is filed with a malafide intention to cause monetary loss to the respondent and to extract more money from the Respondent firm.

12.It is further contended by the Respondent that out of agreed amount, respondent firm paid Three crores to the petitioners through cheques, demand drafts and cash as mentioned in MOU and agreed to pay Rs.1.50 crore after obtaining building permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation and after commencement of construction work as mutually agreed by the respondent and petitioner. The petitioners intentionally not encashed

Rs.45 lakhs and Rs.55 lakhs paid to them under cheque Nos.394020 and 394022 of Sate Bank of Hyderabad, DD colony, hence this respondent sent DD

Nos.410698, 410699 and 410700, Dt.07-09-2016 by registered post to the 10 petitioners, in lieu of cheque bearing Nos.394020 and 392022 of SBH for Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.45 lakhs respectively drawn on Indian Bank, however the said

DDs were returned with an endorsement “Door locked”. The statement that the petitioners have received only Rs.27 lakhs from the respondent firm is false and misleading, the Respondent firm deny the statement of petitioners that they lost livelihood due to taking possession of the land by Respondent as per DGPA

Dt.21-02-2014 and they are put to strict proof. In fact the petitioners have committed breach of contract on several counts as they are causing obstruction to the Respondent to carryout development activities contrary to the terms of

DGPA, which resulted in filing OP No.1137/2016 by the Respondent firm. It is further denied by the Respondent that they failed to commence work in the petition schedule property and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.

After taking possession of petition schedule land, they undertook leveling of the land, fencing was done, though the neighbouring land owners raised boundary disputes, the petitioners did not resolve the problem in spite of repeated requests. The Respondent applied for building permission to GHMC on 03-11- 2014 in the name of Petitioner No.1, which was refused by he GHMC through their letter No.77968/03/11/2014/2590, Dt.11-11-2014 pointing out certain defects, the same were complied and resubmitted. Once again the GHMC by

Lr.No.77968/03/11/2014/HO/3194, Dt.24/25-06-2015 refused permission by pointing certain defects that “along the Nala the buffer zone has not shown in the layout and the way of nala as per revenue records”. As per clause – 9 of

DAGPA Dt.21-02-2014, the land owners shall handover the original title deeds and other relevant documents, but till date the petitioners have not furnished the original title deeds to the respondent. They also suppressed major fact of existence of Nala in the lands and the said fact came to the knowledge of

Respondent when GHMC refused permission for the second time on 11 24-06-2015. Immediately the Respondent approached the revenue authorities for survey of extent of Nala and conducting the survey, the inspector of survey and Land records, RR District issued a Tounch plan showing existence of Nala in the petition schedule land, in the meanwhile, one K.Githender, resident of

Hyderguda village made complaint Dt.22-02-2016 to the Commissioner, GHMC alleging encroachment of Phirangi Nala and requesting not to grant building permission to petitioners and others. In pursuance of the complaint, the GHMC building application was forwarded to the Revenue and Irrigation authorities for joint survey and for further action. The GHMC through Lr.No.77968/03/11/2014/

HO/326, Dt.14-03-2016 informed the Respondent that the building committee examined and recommended the building application and directed the

Respondent to remit an amount of Rs.2,54,75,765/- and accordingly they paid the said amount through the acknowledgment. Subsequently joint survey was conducted and the GHMC by Lr.No.77968/03/11/2014/HO/791, Dt.29/31-03- 2016. In pursuance of building committee meeting Dt.23-08-2017 recommended the grant of building permission subject to mortgage of 5% of total built up area and requested to submit revised plan to GHMC and also directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,15,58,595/- towards difference fee and charges as per the building committee recommendations, Dt.21-09-2017.

GHMC reduced the said amount to Rs.73,22,590/- by Letter Dt.02-11-2017 and directed to pay the said amount within 10 days. Accordingly they paid entire amount within stipulated time, ultimately the GHMC granted building permit order in file No.77968/03/11/2014/HO, permit No.53417/HO/SZ/Cir-6/2016,

Dt.05-01-2018. Thus the respondent paid a total amount of Rs.3,27,98,355/- shows that he invested huge amount and there was no delay on their part. The

Respondent bonafidely pursuing the authorities for obtaining necessary permissions without lapse on their part. Therefore, the petitioners cannot allege 12 for the delay, which was reasonably occurred in compliance of procedural requirements to get permission on 05-01-2018. The respondent has paid

Rs.4.50 crores to the petitioners as per MOU Dt.21-02-2014. There is no specific agreement that the time is essence of the development agreement.

Under these circumstances, time cannot be essence of contract at any rate, the petitioners has no power to terminate the contract unilaterally and caused irreparable loss and prejudice to respondent, for which they are entitled to claim damages from the petitioners. As per Clause 21 of DGPA Dt.21-02-2014, the time for completion of project is thirty (30) months from the date of obtaining final layout/ building permit which in the present case is 05-01-2018. The delay in obtaining the building permission is not attributable to Respondent, it is only due to the suppression of fact of existence of Nala in the petition schedule land by the petitioners. Further, the payment of Rs.4.70 crores goodwill by the

Respondent as a pre-requisit of development agreement as alleged by the petitioners is denied and the said clause in MOU is non-existent and legally untenable. Because of interference of the petitioners in the developmental activities, the respondent herein is constrained to file OP No.1137/2016 and this court as well as the Hon'ble High Court directed the petitioners not to interfere with the developmental activities and to invoke arbitration clause. In compliance of the orders of Hon'ble High Court in CMA No.1291/2017, the Respondent issued a notice Dt.08-02-2018 to the petitioners for appointment of Arbitrator, when the petitioners did not respond, the respondent herein filed Arbitration application No.42/2018 on 30-04-2018 and notices were served on the petitioners herein as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. Contrary to the said order, the petitioners filed present OP with false and misleading averments and obtained ex-parte Status Quo order Dt.01-05-2018. Due to non-cooperation of 13 the petitioners, this respondent has suffered huge loss as it already spent more than Rs.9.00 crores in the project.

13.It is further contended that as per Clause 21 of DAGPA Dt.21-02- 2014, thirty (30) months period starts from the date of obtaining the building permission I.e, on 05-01-2018 and thus the respondent got time up to June, 2021. hence the question of termination of agreement does not arise. It is submitted that the petitioners issued termination notice on 24-04-2018, which was served on the respondent on 26-04-2018 calling upon the respondent to respond and execute cancellation deed within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of notice, even without waiting for the expiry of notice period of 7 days, the petitioners filed the present OP on 27-04-2018 and obtained exparte interim order on 01-05-2018, which shows the malafide intention of the petitioners.

When there is no specific provision enabling the petitioners for termination of

DAGPA Dt.24-04-2018 is illegal and non-est in the eye of law. It is further sated that Regd document cannot be cancelled unilaterally by giving mere notice the said action of petitioners terminating the contract itself is a breach of agreement, the respondent issued a suitable reply notice Dt.03-05-2018 requesting the petitioners herein to withdraw the termination notice within a period of one week, otherwise, the respondent would be constrained to take suitable action. As long as the existence of DAGPA, Dt.21-02-2014, the respondent possession over the petition schedule land cannot be termed as illegal and the respondent cannot be prevented from taking developmental activities as per the building plan and the

DAGPA, more over Arbitration Application No.42/2018 is pending before the

Hon'ble High Court for invoking the appointment of arbitrator. The question of

entering into the schedule property by the Respondent and his men does not arise as already the respondent firm is in possession and carrying the development activities by obtaining building permission in terms of DAGPA and 14 the said action was confirmed by the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble High Court.

In fact the prayer of petitioners granting interim order is in contravention of orders passed by this court in Arb.OP No.1137/2016 as well as in CMA

No.1291/2017 by the Hon'ble High Court. On the other hand, delay in completing the project would cause heavy loss to the respondent due to escalation of market prices.

14.It is contended that there is no cause of action in filing the OP as there is no violation of any clauses of DAGPA by the respondent. The petitioners herein can raise all the issues before the Arbitration Tribunal to be appointed by the Hon'ble High Court in Arbitration Application No.42/2018, hence it is prayed to vacate the Status Quo order, Dt.01-05-2018 and to dismiss the present OP with exemplary costs.

15.In reply to the counter, the petitioners have filed elaborate rejoinder reiterating the contents of the petition averments. The specific contentions of the petitioners in the rejoinder are that as per DAGPA, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.4.50 crores as interest free deposit to the petitioners, but which has not been paid to the petitioners as on the date. It is specifically denied that the respondent firm paid Rs.3.00 crores through cheques, Demand Drafts and cash, in fact the Respondent paid only Rs.27 lakhs out of Rs.4.50 crores as well as another sum of Rs.4.70 crores towards goodwill. It is further denied that the petitioners failed to encash Rs.45 lakhs and Rs.55 lakhs paid to them through

Cheque Nos.394020 and 394022 of State Bank of Hyderabad, DD Colony, as a matter of fact, the respondent has taken away the undated cheques with a promise to pay the said amount in cash, but utterly failed to pay the same and the Respondent is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that the petitioners made attempts to interfere with the development works over the petition schedule property, in fact, no works are commenced in the petition schedule 15 property as stated by the respondent, hence the question of petitioners interference does not arise. It is absolutely false to state that the petitioners with their henchmen tried to stop the labourers employed by the Respondent firm while doing works in the petition schedule property, hence the Respondent is constrained to file Arbitration OP No.1137/2016 before this court. It is incorrect to state that the respondent company has spent more than Rs.7.50 crores including payments made to the petitioners and to the statutory authorities for obtaining building permission and in-compliance of the terms of MOU Dt.21-02- 2014 paid an amount of Rs.1.50 crore through Demand drafts drawn on Indian

Bank, Nallakunta branch, Dt.14-03-2018 and that the respondent has spent more than Rs.9.00 crores and all these contentions are concocted and the respondent is put to strict proof of the same. It is contended that filing of

Arbitration application before the Hon'ble High Court has no relevance for deciding the present petition as no arbitral tribunal is constituted as on today, hence the present petition is maintainable in protecting the interest of petitioners. The present OP is filed only after termination notice was delivered to the respondent firm, termination notice is very much valid and legal as the respondent committed various breaches of DAGPA and has defeated the very purpose of agreement. The DAGPA has come to an end due to efflux of time and breaches committed by the respondent, hence the existence of MOU Dt.21- 02-2014 is denied and the same is null and void. It is specifically denied that the petitioners suppressed the existence of Nala in the petition schedule property, the same is within the knowledge of respondent and they pursued the building permission diligently for all these years. The incapability of the respondent firm is clear from the fact that it took four years to obtain building sanction permission from GHMC. Non-payment of amount and non-pursuing the development activities as stipulated in DAGPA, depriving the rights of petitioners and they are 16 put to heavy loss, the respondent does not hold any right to retain the possession of subject land, which lawfully belongs to the petitioners. The prayer in the present petition is no way contrary to the order in Arb OP No.1137/2016 and CMA No.1191/2017 and the present petition is maintainable as the petitioners has established primafacie case as well as balance of convenience in their favour, if it is not granted, the same will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners.

16. Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent submitted written arguments along with supporting documents and citations, perused the evidence on record.

17.Now the point for determination is:

i. Whether the petitioners have primafacie established their case that the

Respondent firm has committed breach of terms and conditions in contravention of DAGPA, Dt.21-02-2014 as alleged?

ii.Whether the petitioners can revoke the contract unilaterally by giving notice when arbitration petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court?

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief of interim injunction as per U/Sec.9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as prayed for?

iv. To what relief?

18. Point Nos.i to iii:

As seen from the averments of petition, counter, rejoinder and documents filed by both parties, it is pertinent that the petitioners are absolute owners of an extent of land Ac.9.20 gts out of Ac.15.00 gts in Sy.No.45, 46/AA and 47/AA at Upparpally village, Rajendrangar Mandal, RR District (herein after referred as petition schedule property) and the petitioners and respondent firm entered into development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney Dt.21-02- 2014 (herein after referred as DAGPA for brevity) to develop the petition schedule land into group houses with the terms and conditions as stipulated 17 therein and the said facts are not in dispute. The main contention of petitioners in the present OP is that the Respondent firm agreed to pay Rs.4.50 crores to the petitioners as interest free returnable deposit, and also agreed to pay

Rs.4.70 crores towards goodwill, but the Respondent firm has failed to pay the amounts as stipulated in MOU Dt.24-02-2014 and as on today they received only Rs.27 lakhs from the Respondent firm and it failed to carry out the developmental works and failed to hand over finished houses in terms of

DAGPA, Dt.21-02-2014 and in view of abnormal delay and failure of Respondent firm in compliance with the development works, the petitioners are suffered heavy monitory loss, hence they are constrained to terminate the contract and filing of Arbitration Application before the Hon'ble High Court cannot restrain them in renouncing the contract.

19.In support of their contention, the petitioners placed reliance upon “Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai Vs. S.M. Krishnan, AIR 1990 SC 673 (relevant para 19 and 23)”, whereinthe Hon'ble Apex court held that the respondent possession of the suit premises was on behalf of the company not on his own right. Therefore it is unnecessary for a company to file a suit for recovery of possession. The respondent has no right to remain in possession of the suit premises after termination of his agency. He has also no right to interfere with the company's business, hence the petitioner deserves grant of temporary injunction, the agent has no possession on his own, he acquires no interest for himself in such property, he cannot deny the Principal's title over the property.

“Chourangi builders and Developers Pvt Ltd., Vs. Maharashtra

Airport Development Company Ltd (MADC)”, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay observed that even though there is no provision in the contract entered into between the parties permitting either party to terminate the contract, 18 since events of default on the part of one party had already occurred, other party is entitled to terminate the contract under the provisions of Indian Contract Act.

In the case of “Rajasthan Breweries Ltd., The Stroh Brewery

Company”, reported in FAO (OS) No.93/99, Dt.12-07-2000 wherein the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that even in the absence of specific clause

authorizing and enabling either party to terminate the agreement in the event of happening of the events specified therein, from the very nature of the agreement, which is private commercial transactions, this same could be terminated even without assigning any reason by serving a reasonable notice.

At the most, in case ultimately it is found that termination was bad in law or contrary to the terms of the agreement or of any understanding between the parties or for any other reason, the remedy of the appellants would be to seek compensation for wrongful termination but not a claim for specific performance of the agreements.

20. The contention of Respondent is that they are not denying the terms and conditions of DAGPA, Dt.21-02-2014 and as per the conditions, their firm paid Rs.3.00 crores to the petitioners through cheques, demand drafts and cash and also agreed to pay Rs.1.50 crores after obtaining building permission from

GHMC and in that process they paid Rs.2,54,75,065/- to GHMC for building permission, apart from that the Respondent firm spent nearly Rs.50 lakshs preparatory and incidental works and the respondent also obtained land use certificate from HMDA, water feasibility certificate from HMWS and SB, preparation of plans from the engineers and clearance of disputes in regard to boundaries of petition schedule land and in that process the project was delayed for six months. At that time the petitioners made attempts to interfere with the works over petition schedule land, upon which the respondent firm got issued legal notice Dt.07-09-2016 to cooperate with the petitioners for smooth 19 execution of project or else to initiate arbitration proceedings for sorting out issues or grievances if any from the Respondent side through arbitration. The

Respondent further contended that along with the notice Dt.07-09-2016 and the

Respondent firm sent DDs (bearing Nos.410698, 410699 and 410700), Dt.07- 09-2016 to the petitioners for an amount of Rs.95 lakhs (25 + 25 + 45 lakhs) drawn on Indian Bank, since the cheque bearing Nos.394020 and 392022 of

SBH were not en-cashed by the petitioners and they have not given any reply to their notice and on 02-11-2016, the petitioners tried to stop the labourers employed by the Respondent restraining to continue the work in the petition schedule property and did not come forward to settle if any grievances or issues with the Respondent firm by invoking Clause-45 of DAGPA, Dt.21-02-2014 to sort out the issues with the respondent. At that stage, the respondent firm has constrained to file Arbitration OP No.1137/2016 U/SEc.9 of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 in this court to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the development work over the petition schedule land. The petitions herein have filed counter denying the averments of petition in the said OP, after considering the documents filed along with the OP, this court allowed the OP by passing Judgment and Decree Dt.19-08-2017, granting Interim Injunction restraining the petitioners herein and their men from interfering with the development works over the petition schedule property pending initiation of arbitration proceedings.

21. As seen from the documents filed by the Respondent, it is pertinent that the petitioners herein filed CMA No.1291/2017 before the Hon'ble

High Court aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree Dt.19-08-2017 passing interim orders in favour of Respondent, the Hon'ble High Court initially passed interim stay in favour of the petitioners and after filing counter by Respondent in

CMA, the Hon'ble High Court disposed off the CMA by orders Dt.01-02-2018 20 directing the petitioners to invoke arbitration clause. As seen from the office copy of invocation notice Dt.08-02-2018, it appears that the Respondent firm issued notice to the petitioners/ land owners for invoking arbitration application, but the petitioners did not give any reply, then the respondent filed an application

U/Sec.11 (6) of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon'ble High

Court, which is numbered as Arb Application No.42/2018 on 03-04-2018 to adjudicate the issues, the respondent firm proposed the name of Sri Justice B.

Prakash Rao, Retd Judge of AP High Court to preside over the arbitration proceedings as the sole arbitrator and sought consent of the petitioners for appointment of arbitrator and the same was listed for admission on 06-04-2018 and notice was ordered to the petitioners before admission, accordingly the notices were sent to the petitioners and they made their appearance through their counsel and the case was posted for hearing on 08-06-2018. The contention of Respondent is that the petitioners herein issued a termination notice Dt.24-04-2018 calling upon the respondent to cancellation deed canceling the DAGPA Dt.21-04-2014 within seven days without following the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as there is no clause in DAGPA or MOU enabling the petitioners herein to terminate the DAGPA.

22. As per the averments of Reply notice, Dt.03-05-2018 sent to the petitioners by the Respondent herein, their contention is that there is no termination clause in the DAGPA to terminate the agreement unilaterally and they are ready to act upon the terms and conditions as mentioned in DAGPA and as per Clause 21 of DGPA Dt.21-02-2014, the time for completion of project is thirty (30) months from the date of obtaining final layout/ building permit, which in the present case is 05-01-2018 and the delay in obtaining the building permission cannot be attributed on this Respondent and payment of Rs.4.70 crores goodwill by the Respondent as a prerequisite of development agreement 21 as alleged by the petitioners is specifically denied and there is no such clause in

MOU and the action of petitioners in terminating the contract unilaterally itself is breach committed by the petitioners and requesting the petitioners to withdraw the termination notice within a period of one week and as long as the existence of DAGPA Dt.21-02-2014, the respondent’s possession over the petition schedule property cannot be termed as illegal and the respondent cannot be prevented from taking development activities as per the building plan and

DAGPA and the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents as per the orders in Arb OP No.1137/2016 and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in

CMA No.1291/2017. In support of their contentions, the Respondent placed

reliance upon the Judgment in “Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd and others Vs. Coca

Cola Co. and others (1995) (5) SCC 545”, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court held that the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not yet fault and that he himself was not responsible for brining about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair of unequitable in his dealing with the party against whom he was seeking relief, his conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of of the person who seek an order of injunction U/O.39 Rule 1 or 2 of CPC, but also in respect of the party approaching the court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings.

The learned cousel for the respondent also relied upon a Judgment reported in “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sriman Narayan and another” (2002) 5 SCC 760, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction during pendency of the legal proceeding is a matter requiring exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion, the court normally applies whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the plaintiff would suffer an 22 irreparable injury if injunction is not granted. The relief of interlocutory injunctions are granted generally to preserve and restore the pending controversy.

23. As seen from the documents filed by the Respondent i.e., copy of memorandum of Understanding, Dt.21-02-2014 between the petitioners and

Respondent firm, the developer agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4.50 crores towards interest free refundable security deposit to the land owner and he paid

Rs.50,00,000/- as on the date 13-04-2012 through cash, cheques and DDs and agreed to pay balance of amount Rs.1.50 crore. receipt of the said amount is admitted and acknowledge by the petitioners. The documents filed by the

Respondent shows that, he filed an application before GHMC on 11-03-2014 for building permission and the Respondent has complied the defects raised by the

GHMC from time to time by revising the applications as pointed by the GHMC and ultimately the Respondent firm has obtained building permission from the

GHMC on 05-01-2018 and the Respondent paid fees total Rs.3,27,98,355/- to the GHMC, which shows the bonafides of Respondent that they are making efforts for the construction of houses. As shown from the copies of Demand

Drafts (3 in number) sent by the Respondent firm to the petitioners drawn on

Indian Bank, Nallakunta, Dt.14-03-2018 for Rs.95,00,000/- (45 + 25 + 25) in total shows that the bonafieds of the Respondent firm, they are acting in accordance with the DAGPA. As seen from the case records, it is evident that earlier the

Respondent firm herein has filed Arb OP No.No.1137/2016 before this court and obtained interim orders from this court by order Dt.19-08-2017 restraining the petitioners to interfering with the development works over the suit schedule property and they are directed to invoke Arbitration clause 45 of DAGPA, D.21- 02-2014 to resolve their disputes or grievances. Aggrieved by the orders of this court, the petitioners herein preferred CMA No.1291 of 2017 before the Hon'ble 23

High Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench disposed off the CMA by orders

Dt.01-02-2018 while confirming the orders of this court and directed both parties to resolve their dispute by invoking arbitration clause within ninety (90) days from the date of order as the Respondent spent huge amount towards development works over the suit schedule property. As per the directions of the

Hon'ble Division Bench, the Respondent sent notice for invocating arbitration to

the petitioners on 08-02-2018. As thepetitioners did not respond to the notice of Respondent herein, they have filed an arbitration Application No.42 of 2018

before the Hon'ble High Court on 29-03-2018 seeking appointment of arbitrator

to resolve their disputes on the issues whether the contract is irrevocable and the possession is delivered to the developer as per DAGAP, can the land owners interfere with the development activity and the land owners having received an amount of Rs.2,76,00,000/- (Rupees two crores seventy six lakhs only) towards interest free refundable deposit amount is justified in denying the same. Pending application before the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of

Arbitrator and ordered notice, the petitioners herein has sent notice to the

Respondent on 24-04-2018, for termination of DAGPA, Dt.21-02-2014 apart from cancellation of MOU, Dt.24-02-2014 and they have filed the present OP seeking ad-interim injunction against the Respondent from interfering into the schedule property and not to carry out any developmental activities and obtained status Quo orders.

24.Having regard to the documentary proof furnished by the

Respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the Respondent firm is not defaulter in carrying out the development work over the petition schedule property and as per the contention of Respondent that they have obtained permission from the GHMC for construction of houses on 05-01-2018 and from that date, they have to complete construction work within 30 months and there is 24 no clause in DAGPA or MOU enabling the petitioners to terminate the DAGPA.

Under these circumstances, during pendency of arbitration application before the Hon'ble High Court to resolve disputes between both the parties, the petitioners herein cannot be permitted to repudiate their contract unilaterally by simply issuing notice to the Respondent.

24. On perusal of clause No.45 of Development Agreement cum

General Power of Attorney dt:21-02-2014 and MOU (Exs.A1 and A2) reads as follows:

“All the disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be initially resolved by mutual discussions among the Developer and Land owners or the nominated representatives of both the parties. In case of disputes not resolved by mutual discussions, the same shall be referred to the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The disputes shall be referred to the mutually agreed arbitrator, The award of

Arbitrator shall be binding and final on both the parties.” The disputes raised by the petitioners herein are to be agitated before Arbitrator and they cannot raise

before this court in the present OP.

25.As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot revoke their contract without adjudicating the matter before the arbitrator as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in CMA No.1291/2017 in Arb OP

No.1137/2016 in terms of clause 45 of DAGPA and the petitioners are not entitled for the interim relief, restraining the Respondent firm from continuing the development works in the petition schedule property. The point numbers i to iii are answered against the petitioners herein.

25

26. Point No.iv:

In the result, this OP is dismissed with no costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant and after

correction pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of

December, 2018.

Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Read by:

Compared by:

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989- CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT :- SMT.A.BHARATHI.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989

CUM VII ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, R.R. DIST

Thursday, on this 27th day of December, 2018.

LAOP. No. 56 OF 2014

Between:-

T.V.Janardhana Rao, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 74 years, R/o Mahalakshmi Estates, Flat No.102, Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad. … Claimant.

AND

Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit VI Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. … Referring Officer

This Reference is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Government Pleader for the Referring Officer, Sri G. Ram Chandra Rao, Counsel for the claimant and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a reference U/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to enhance compensation amount granted @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and awarding total compensation of Rs.2,86,461/- (land, including structure and standing trees) for the acquisition to an extent of land Ac 0.10 gts of

Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide Award proceedings No.82/ORR/LA/Unit VII/2005, dt.03-10-2007 passed by the 2

LAO/ Spl. Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-VII, ORR, HMDA, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad in favour of Claimant Sri T.V.Janardhana Rao, S/o. Kotaiah.

2.Brief averments of the claim statement are as follows:

The claimant is absolute owner of Ac 0.10 gts of land in Sy.No.

177 situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. The Land Acquisition Officer acquired total extent of land admeasuring Ac.23.23 gts in Sy.Nos. 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 199, 200, 201 & 202 situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of formation of Outer

Ring Road and passed an Award proceedings No.82/LA/

ORR/Unit-VII/2005, Dt.03.10.2007 by fixing the market value/ compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre. The

Claimant and others being dis-satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, they sought reference to this court for adjudication of market value of the land under acquisition.

3.It is further contended that order of the Land Acquisition

Officer and the proceeding issued in Form IX under Land Acquisition Act is contrary to the facts, circumstances, law and weight of evidence of case and that the Government issued public notice, inviting tenders proposing to sell bits of land of different sizes, situated at Kokapet

Village and according to Government the upset price itself was quoted at

Rs.4.5crores per acre and the actual purchase bids were between 12 to 15 crores. The land in area has been notified as multi purpose zone and

HUDA has given permission for 60 storied twin towers which is in the 3 vicinity of the land under acquisition and the land is surrounded by the commercial complexes, schools and residential colonies etc.

4.It is further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the registered Sale deeds vide document bearing Nos.

10389/2004, 10388/2004 dt.06.10.2004 and 10378/2004, 10377/2004

dated 08.10.2004, 10378/2004, 3301/2004 dt. 06.10.2004 and 11.2.2004

and similarly 2026 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004, 10324/2005, 1303/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 10479/2004 and 10478/2004, 3302/2004 dt.13.10.2004 and 11.2.2004, 2035/2004, 3124/2005, 4620/2005 dt.25.02.2004, 28.02.2005 and 06.04.2005 respectively which were purchased for valuable consideration much prior to the acquisition proceedings.

5.It is further contended that the award proceeding does not at all disclose the values ascribable any payable towards fruit-bearing plants based on their value nor does it reflect any estimate that was carried out concerning the structures raised thereon and their notional value as are required by the Horticulture Department in respect of the fruit bearing plants, which are being reared and are standing thereon, loss to such valuable produce and wealth is always taken into consideration by virtue of the existing G.Os and laying down the guidelines for fixation of compensation and hence the award is lopsided and needs to be reconsidered. The Respondent / Land acquisition officer failed to look at the purport and application of the provisions contained in Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act which requires solatium to be paid and the

Land Acquisition officer did not have any regard to the existing market 4 value during the said period in the locality taking into consideration the laying of Highway abutting the lands under acquisition. Hence the market value needs to be determined based on various other contemporaneous documents executed in the locality and the prevalent market rates in the locality based on the rapid development and changes which has taken place in 2 to 4 years prior to the Notification which are once again reflected in the post notification auctions conducted in the locality.

6.It is further contended that the claimant wanted to raise 20 storied building in his land for better future of his family and having parted with his land for public purpose, claimant suffers heavy loss in monetary terms and no land is available in that area for the said price and that the compensation awarded by the Respondent / LAO is inadequate and has no relevance to the prevailing market value which is not less than 15 crores per acre. Therefore, it is prayed to award compensation amount for the land acquired @ Rs.15 crores per acre and all other benefits under the amended provision of the land Acquisition

Act, 68 of 1984.

7.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the

Respondent/ LAO is just and fair and the claimant herein is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

5

2. Whether the solatium and interest are to be awarded as per the provisions of Amendment Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (Act No.68/1984)?

3. To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the contention of Claimant, he got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on his behalf.

Ex.A1 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3293/2004, Dt.11.2.2004,

Ex.A2 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3294/2004, Dt.11.2.2004,

Ex.A3 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.10388/2004, Dt.06.10.2004,

Ex.A4 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.1303/2005, Dt.04.02.2005,

Ex.A5 is certified copy of information provided by Hyderabad

Metropolitan Development Authority,under RTI, Ex.A6 is certified copy of

Sale Deed doc. No.2026/2004 dt.25.02.2004, Ex.A7 is certified copy of

Sale Deed doc. No.10377/2004 dt.08.10.2004 and Ex.A8 is certified copy of Sale Deed doc. No.10378/2004 dt.08.10.2004. RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of Respondent/ LAO. Ex.B1 is copy of

Award.

9. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the case records.

10.POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

The learned counsel for the Claimant has contended that, the

Respondent/LAO did not consider that contemporaneous sales took place in the past three years in the correct perspective. It is not known why the sales statics of 2003 at Serial No.15 which pertains to 6

Sy.No.204 /E of Narsingi Village for the rate per acre Rs.1,41,92,391/- was not taken into consideration, the acquired land is adjacent to the said

Survey number. The sales which are referred in page Nos. 36 and 37 of the Award are not taken into consideration, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 sale deeds are on 11.02.2004, just two months prior to the announcement of ORR

Project and 1 year 10 months prior to the notification on 13.12.2005, Ac 3.15 ½ gts land in each Sy Nos. 187, 189, 193 are also notified for acquisition was sold for sale consideration @ Rs.31,00,000/- per acre, that under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, sold for a sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-.

The respondent / LAO referred to a Sale Deed executed in respect of land in Sy.No.205, which according to the notification is of Government land. As per the award at page No.23 serial No.41 of 2003 and Sl.No.34 of 2005 represents the Sy.No.205 of Narsingi Village, originally classified as

Government Land, more than 66 acres of land. As per the Award the land is sub-divided as 205/1, 205/2, 205/3, 205/4 and after taking permission the land was sold. While in the same Survey number in 2003 when the land is about Rs.17,00,000/- it is not known how the land in 2005 is about

Rs.7.56 lakhs. The sale deeds and the permissions claimed by the

Respondent have deliberately not been produced before the Court.

Further those lands are not comparable to private patta lands and in order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the follows decisions:

1. State of Punjab and another v. Hans Raj (D) by L.Rs and

Others 1994 (5) SCC p.734, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held 7 that method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times for fixing market value of acquired land if followed could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched to be sale of acquired land. It is well settled that genuine and bonafide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence, the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired land possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent person acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

2. Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa 2010(13 )SCC 710 at para No.20 in page Nos. 715-16, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “ the legal position is that even there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars , which is a bonafide transaction will be considered.

Where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices ranged in a narrow band with, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price, but where the values disclose in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands are that the lower value sales is on account of undervaluation or other price 8 depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to.

3. Valliyammal and Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land

Acquisition) and Ors decided in Batch SLP Nos. 22086-22087 of 2009, dt. 01.08.2011.

4.Salaha Begum and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer (Civil Appeal No.6414 of 2012 , dt.03.12.2012).

5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jitendra Kumar (AIR 1982 SC

876) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that post notification sale transaction can be taken into consideration for determination of

Market Value at the time of acquisition.

6. In Chiman Lal v. Special Acquisition Officer, Poona (1988) 3 SCC.

11.Basing on the principles rendered in the afore mentioned judgments, the learned Counsel for the claimant prayed to pass award by fixing fair compensation @ Rs.14.05 crores per acre with all other benefits basing on comparable sales method and as per the provisions of

Land Acquisition Act, 68 of 1984.

12.The claimant / PW1 (T.V.Janardhan Rao S/o Kotaiah) filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination, affirmed on oath reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the claim petition. The main contention of

PW1 is that the Respondent/ LAO passed award dated 3.10.2007 to an extent of Ac 0.10 gts of land in Sy.No.177 determining the value of land @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and total compensation Rs.2,86,461/- for lands, 9 buildings, trees including other benefits i.e., solatium and additional market value, he received the said amount under protest and requested the LAO to make reference to the Civil Court for fixing just and fair compensation U/s.18 of LA Act, hence the reference.

13.It is further deposed by PW1 that the proposal of development of Outer Ring Road was done through G.O.Ms No.459 MA.

Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) dated 29.10.2004 and the land acquired was not part of the original alignment and there was an alignment change as per G.O.Ms. No.8, dt.12.12.2005 and the

Government has approved the final alignment including an extent of Ac 48.13 gts land situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, for formation of Outer Ring Road. The Government issued public notice by advertising in the local newspaper on 27.06.2006 for sale of plots through a public auction to be held on 20.07.2006 inviting tenders proposing to sell bits of lands different sizes, situated at Kokapet village. According to

Government, the upset price itself was quoted @ Rs.4.5 crores per acre and the actual purchase were between Rs.6.10 and 14.45 crores per acre.

The lands under auction and his lands under acquisition are similar in nature, situated nearer to Gachibowli, Knowledge corridor of Hyderabad,

Extention of financial District, within one kilometer of radius of his land under acquisition, IIIT, ISB, Infosys, Wipro, Microsoft and Polaris were established. The lands in the area including his land has been notified as a multipurpose zone and HUDA has given permission for 60 storied twin towers, which can be viewed from his lands. The land acquisition officer 10 failed to appreciate the prevalent market rates in the locality, more in the light of open auction held in the locality concerning the lands belongs to the Government purchased by the private parties popularly known as

Golden Mile which lands are similarly situated to those acquired under the present notification. The land acquisition officer did not refer the following documents forth coming to the market value of the land.

S.No. Sale Deed No. Survey No. Date of Valuation Extent of

Sale per acre land 13293/2004187,189 and 11.2.2004Rs.31,00,000/- Ac 3.15 ½ 193 of gts Narsingi Village 23294/2004187,189 and 11.2.2004Rs.31,00,000/- Ac 3.15 ½ 193 of gts Narsingi Village 310388/2004190, 201/A 06.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 1.21 gts and 202/A of Narsingi Village 41303/2005191, 192/C 04.02.2005 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts of Narsingi Village 510377/2004198/P , 197/08.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts P and 199/A of Narsingi Village 610370/2004199/A of 08.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts Narsingi Village

14.PW1 further deposed that during Award enquiry

M/s.Jayabheri Private Limited submitted their claim on 07.04.2007 and submitted document Nos. 10388/2004 dt.06.10.2004 and 10378/2004 dt.08.10.2004, 10377/2004 dated 08.10.2004, 10387/2004 dt.06.10.2004, 3301/2004 11.2.2004, 2026 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004, 1032/2005 11 dt.04.02.2005, 1303/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 10479/2004 dt.13.10.2004, 10478/2004, dt. 13.10.2004, 3302/2004 dt.11.2.2004, 2035/2004 dt.25.02.2004, 3124/2005 dt.28.02.2005, 4620/2005 dt.06.04.2005, pertaining to the sales in above said Survey numbers are adjacent to the lands of claimant herein and the said sale deeds were executed prior to the original notification dated 29.10.2004 and valuation under the said sale deeds is minimum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The lands acquired under notification are very valuable in nature, having potential to use for multi storied and commercial buildings. The LAO failed to consider the above said documents for the purpose of fixing fair market price, in contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to look at the purport and application of the provisions contained under Section 23 (1-A) of Land Acquisition Act which requires solatium to be paid. The

Land Acquisition Officer failed to consider the prevalent market value in the locality, basing on the rapid development and changes which have taken place in 2 to 4 years prior to the notification in the post notification auction conduct in the locality. The sale carried out by the

State of Andhra Pradesh under public auction need to be taken into consideration in the light of Judgment and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court.

15.PW1 further deposed that having parted with the land, he suffered heavy monetary loss as he wanted to construct 20 storied building for the better future of his family as there is no developed land 12 available in that area to purchase the land for the price fixed by the LAO.

In support of said contention PW1 placed reliance upon Exs.A1 to A8.

16.In cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that he purchased an extent of Ac 0.10 gts land in Sy.No.177 in the year 1982 along with five others and the said extent was acquired by the Respondent/ LAO and the date of notification is 13.12.2005. PW1 challenged the changing alignment of outer ring road in the Hon'ble High Court of AP. PW1 denied suggestion that the auctioned lands are different from the lands under auction are situated at Kokapet and they are far away from the lands under acquisition. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that the HUDA gave permission for the construction of 60 storied twin towers and he has not obtained any permission by filing application for construction of 20 storied building in his land. PW1 further admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that the market value of the land per acre is

Rs.14 crores as on the date of 4(1) notification.

17.RW1 Smt B.Aparna , Special Deputy Collector for Unit V, ORR

Project filed her evidence affidavit, affirmed on oath admitting the fact that Respondent/ LAO has acquired land admeasuring Ac 0.10 gts in

Sy.No. 177 of Narsingi village for formation of outer ring road. There is no dispute in regard to the ownership of Claimant / PW1 for the land under acquisition.

18.RW1 further deposed that the Government of AP issued notification dated 29.10.2004 for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac 13 48.13 gts in Sy.Nos.96, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205/1,205/2, 205/3 and 205/4 of Narsingi Village, the acquisition proposals were received from Estate Officer, HUDA. The land got sub-divided by the survey staff, the LAO conducted joint inspection of patta lands and government lands under acquisition, fruit bearing trees, structures and open borewells existing in patta lands through which the alignment of outer ring road is passing. Draft notification under 4(1), draft declaration under section 6 of LA Act under urgency clause in respect of the lands were submitted to Project Director, the proceedings were published in AP Gazette ORR No.181 dated 13.12.2005, draft notification were published on 15.12.2005 and 16.12.2005. The notices u/s.5-A has been issued on 01.07.2006 calling for objections. 5-A enquiry has been conducted and as per the SD records prepared, the alignment is not passing through survey numbers 96, 197 and 198 accordingly individual notices were served on the concerned persons inviting claims and objections on 24.11.2006. Accordingly award enquiry was conducted on 10.04.2007, during award enquiry the land owners of Sy.Nos.176 and 177 appeared and in order to determine the prevailing market value of land, the LAO obtained sales statistics presiding three years from the draft notification with effect from 13.12.2002 to 13.12.2005 obtained from the Sub Registrar,

Rajendranagar, inspected the lands of Narsingi Village coming under the alignment along with Estate Officer, HUDA on 12.07.2007.

14

19.RW1 further stated in her evidence that, the sales took place in the acquired lands in the vicinity are taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing market value. The Assistant Director of Horticulture,

DFO, RR District, Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj have been addressed letters for conducting survey of structures, trees and borewell etc., to estimate the value. Assistant Director of Horticulture furnished the valuation of trees, Executive Engineer , R&B furnished valuation of structures. As per the sales statistics (332 sales ) took place during the preceding three years to the date of notification i.e., 13.12.2005, all the sales pertains to small plots meant for non agricultural purpose, cannot be taken as guiding factor to determine true value, hence discarded that 143 sales took place on acreage basis, the serial No.34 of 2005 sales relates to Sy.No.205 is adopted for fixation of market value, accordingly the market value for acquired lands in the present OP were fixed @

Rs.7.56 lakhs per acre. Even as per the preliminary valuation statement issued by Sub Registrar, Rajendranagar shows that the land in and around the vicinity of acquired land, the market value of the land is Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and the same has been submitted to the Project Director, which has been approved and that the Respondent/ LAO has fixed the market value @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre considering all the facts in and around that area, the claimant has not filed any proof of evidence to substantiate his claim, therefore the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

15

20.In her cross-examination, RW1 admitted that, the date of 4(1) notification dated 13.12.2005 is relevant for determining compensation and the Sy.No.205 is Government land it was allotted to Ex-Service men and freedom fighters and after following due procedure and obtaining permission from the Government, they have sold the property and the

Sale Deeds mentioned in page Nos.36 and 37 of award proceedings are executed between 13.12.2002 to 13.12.2005 and as per Ex.A1 sale deed the sale consideration per acre was mentioned as Rs.31,00,000/- in

Sy.No.187, 189 and 193 and as per Ex.A3 sale deed, the sale consideration is Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.Nos. 191 and 192 and as per Ex.A2 sale deed the sale consideration for acre is Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.No.189 and 193 and she doesn't know the basic price fixed by the Government for auctioning the lands in Kokapet and she doesn't know the topography of acquired lands.

It was suggested to RW1 that Sy.No.205 is not adjacent to the lands under acquisition and she did not produce the sale deeds relied upon by the LAO.

21.As seen from the Ex.A1 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc

No.3293/2004, Dt.11.2.2004) pertains to the Sy.No.187, 189 and 193 of

Narsingi Village reflects that the sale price of one acre is Rs.31,00,000/- as on 11.2.2004. As seen from Ex.A2 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc

No.3294/2004, Dt.11.2.2004) executed in favour of M/s.Jayabheri

Properties Private Limited in respect of Sy.Nos.187,189 and 193 of

Narsingi Village reflects that market price shown for one acre is

Rs.31,00,000/-. As seen from Ex.A3 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc 16

No.10388/2004, Dt.06.10.2004) executed by Mr.T.Devender S/o.

T.Chittaiah in favour of M/s.Jayabheri Properties Private Limited to an extent of Ac.7.00 in Sy.Nos. 189, 190, 200, 201 and 202 reflects that sale price is Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. As seen from Ex.A4 (certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.1303/2005, Dt.04.02.2005), executed by T.Pavani, daughter of T.Devender (grand daughter of claimant herein) executed in favour of

M/s.Jayabheri Constructions Private Limited to an extent of Sy.Nos. 191 and 192 reflects that sale price per one acre is Rs.30,00,000/-, As seen from Ex.A6 (certified copy of Sale deed Doc. No.2026/2004 dt.25.02.2004) executed by M/s Muppa Homes Pvt Ltd in favour of M/s.Jayabheri

Properties Private Limited to an extent of Sy.Nos.194,196,197,200,201 and 202 reflects that sale price per one acre is Rs.20,00,000/- , As seen from Ex.A7 (certified copy of Sale Deed doc. No. 10377/04 dt.08.10.2004) executed by T.Padmaja in favour of M/s. Jayabheri Properites Private

Limted to an extent of Sy.Nos.197,198 and 199 reflects that sale price per acre is Rs.30,00,000/- and Ex.A8 ( certified copy of Sale Deed

Doc.No.10378/04 dt.08.10.2004) executed by T.Padmaja in favour of M/s.

Jayabheri Properites Private Limted to an extent of Sy.Nos.199/A reflects that sale price per acre is Rs.30,00,000/-.

22.In the present OP, the land under acquisition is pertain to

Sy.No. 177 of Narsingi village. The contention of PW1 is that the Land

Acquisition Officer failed to submit sale deed relied upon by him for fixing the market value and the lands of Kokapet are at distance of 4 kms to the Narsingi and the Government conducted auction and the auction 17 bids are raising between Rs.6.10 crores to Rs.14.45 crores and the

Respondent fixed very meager amount for their lands under acquisition and as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, sale deeds in favour of M/s. Jayabheri

Properties Private Limited in the year 2004 and 2005 for an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.31,00,000/- in Sy.Nos. 187, 189, 193 194,196,197,200,201 and 202 and the LAO has taken into consideration of value of SY.No.205 which is no way concerned and he is seeking enhancement of compensation for the land acquired @ Rs.14 crore per acre along with other benefits.

23.As seen from the case record, the date of notification was 13.12.2005. The Respondent/ LAO has adopted the market value of land in SY.No.205 as guiding factor, but they have not submitted any documentary proof to show that the lands in Sy.No. 177 are adjacent or similiar to Sy.No.205 which is Government land. As per the award copy, the nature of land under acquisition is dry agricultural land. Admittedly

Respondent/ LAO has failed to submit the prevailing market value certificates of Sy.No.177 issued by SRO, Rajendranagar as on the date of notification or three years prior to the date of notification from 2002 to 2005. As per the award the LAO has determined the market value of land @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre basing on the market value of Sy.No.205 and he was awarded compensation of Rs.2,86,461/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty One Only) to an extent of Ac 0.10 gts of land in Sy.No.177 including 30% solatium, 12% additional 18 market value, from the date of notification to date of award i.e., from 17.12.2005 to 3.10.2007 including all benefits.

24.As seen from the evidence on record, the Respondent/ LAO, has failed to explain on what basis he adopted market value @

Rs.7,56,000/- per acre by taking into consideration of Sy.No.205 and whether it is in the vicinity and identical to the land under acquisition situated in Sy No. 177. The prayer of claimant is that he wants to enhance the market price from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.14 crores basing on the auction sales conducted by the Government at Kokapet village and

PW1 submitted Ex.A5. As seen from Ex.A5 / certified copy of information obtained from Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, under

RTI showing the details of auction notification and names of highest bidders of the land in Sy.Nos. 100, 109, 114, 116, 117 and 147 of Kokapet village dated 20.7.2006 that land price is between Rs. 6 crores to Rs.14.45 crores per acre. As per his contention, Kokapet village is at distance of 4 kms to the land under acquisition which is highly potential for commercial development, situated nearer to Special economic zone, nearer to RGI

Airport and he wants to construct multi storied building for better future of his family.

25.In Major General Kapil Mehra and others vs. Union of India and another (2015 (2)SCC 262) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that “Auction sales stands upon on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an element to competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel 19 over other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction-sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction-sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc., to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction-sale transactions, when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land.

26.Having regard to the rationale observed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforementioned judgment, the contention of the claimant (PW1) cannot be taken into consideration as the lands in Kokapet financial district are situated at different location from the lands under acquisition. Further the claimant did not adduce any evidence in that regard except filing of Ex.A5 auction particulars of the lands in Kokapet village which are pertains to different village which is notified as special economic zone.

27.Having regard to registered sale deeds under Exs A1 to A4 furnished by the claimant, sale transactions took place in the years 2004- 2005 in respect of Sy.Nos. 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 and 202 20 of Narsigi Village, the market value of the said land per acre is @Rs.30,00,000/- to Rs. 31,00,000/-, but the land under acquisition is of different survey numbers to the survey numbers mentioned in Exs.A1 to

Ex.A4, A6 to A8. The claimant has failed to submit any topograph or sketch map to show that the lands mentioned in afore mentioned sale deeds are adjacent to his land in Sy.No. 177, even though they are situated in the same village.

28.In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Limited Vs Rameshbai Jivanbhai Patel and Ors decided in Civil Appeal

Nos. 5192, 5193, 5197 and 5198 of 2002, dt.31.07.2008, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed at para No.11 that “ primarily ,the increase

in land prices depends upon four factors situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand or land in area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand or land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50 % or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or 21 rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2 % per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/ semi- urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas.

Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

29.Taking into account of all the above factors and escalation of market prices in the surroundings areas of the Hyderabad city and

Narsingi village is highly potential area and nearer to the special economic zone in Kokapet village, I am of the considered opinion that the

Respondent/ LAO has failed to fix just and fair market value for the lands under acquisition. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it will be just and fair to enhance the market value of land under acquisition from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.28,00,000/- per acre as on the date of notification i.e., 13.12.2005.

30.In respect of compensation awarded to the structures and trees existing in the acquired land, the LAO has fixed Rs.2,86,461/- in respect of Sy.No.177 basing on the report of Asst. Director of Agriculture and Execute Engineer. But the claimant / PW1 did not adduce any 22 evidence to show that the value fixed by the LAO for the structures and trees is inadequate. Hence, the claim of the claimant for enhancement of the value of structures and trees is not considered and the valuation fixed by the LAO is accepted as just and fair. Relying on the principle rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore mentioned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled for all the benefits i.e., additional market value, solatium and interest as per the provision of the amended Act, 1984 (Act No.68/1984). Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

31.POINT No. 3:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows :

1) The compensation amount of Rs.7,56,000/- per acre fixed by the Respondent / LAO for the acquired lands is hereby enhanced to Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

2) The Claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- from the date of section 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession.

3) The claimant is further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking over possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit or payment as the case may be on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

23

4) The claimant is entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

5) The claimant is entitled for costs of the petition and for the above mentioned enhanced amounts as clearly stated in the

Judgment , to the extent of land acquired from them.

6) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the balance to be paid.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th December, 2018.

For Trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Claimants:

PW1 :T.V.Janardhan Rao

On behalf of the Referring Officer: RW1 :B.Aparna

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

On behalf of the Claimants:

Ex.A1:CC of Sale Deed No.3293/2004 dt.11.02.2004

Ex.A2:CC of Sale Deed No.3294/2004 dt.11.02.2004

Ex.A3:CC of Sale Deed No.10388/2004, dt.06.10.2004

Ex.A4:CC of Sale Deed No.1303/2005, dt.04.02.2005

Ex.A5:CC of Information provided by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, under RTI, dt.29.10.2015

Ex.A6:CC of Sale Deed No.2026/2004, dt.25.02.2004

Ex.A7:CC of Sale Deed No.10377/2004, dt.08.10.2004 24

Ex.A8:CC of Sale Deed No.10378/2004, dt.08.10.2004

On behalf of the Referring Officer:

Ex.B1:Attested copy of award proceeding No.82/L.A/ORR/Unit-VII/ 05, dt.03.10.2007

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, cum Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, RR. Dist.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989- CUM- VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT

L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT :- SMT.A.BHARATHI.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989

CUM VII ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, R.R. DIST

THURSDAY, ON THIS 27 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

LAOP. No. 258 OF 2011

Between:-

T.Chittaiah, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 80 years, H.No.7-1-29/B, Leelanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. … Claimant. AND

Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit VII Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. … Referring Officer

This Reference is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel for Referring Officer, Sri G. Ram Chandra Rao, Counsel for the claimant and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a reference U/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to enhance compensation amount granted @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and awarding total compensation of Rs.71,81,509/- (including structure and standing trees) for the acquisition of land to an extent of Ac 5.08 gts of Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 2 vide Award proceedings No.82/ORR/LA/Unit VII/2005, dt.03-10-2007 passed by the LAO/ Spl. Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-VII, ORR, HMDA,

Tarnaka, Hyderabad in favour of Claimant Sri T.Chittaiah S/o. Kotaiah.

2.Brief averments of the claim statement are as follows:

The claimant is absolute owner of Ac 5.03 and Ac 00.05 gts of land in SY.Nos. 176 and 177 situated at Narsingi Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Land Acquisition

Officer acquired total extent of land admeasuring Ac.23.23 gts in

Sy.Nos. 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 199, 200, 201 & 202 situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road and passed an Award proceedings No.82/LA/ ORR/Unit-VII/2005,

Dt.03.10.2007 by fixing the market value/ compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre. The Claimant and others being dis-satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, they sought reference to this court for adjudication of market value of the land under acquisition.

3.It is further contended that order of the Land Acquisition

Officer and the proceeding issued in Form IX under Land Acquisition

Act is contrary to the facts, circumstances, law and weight of evidence of case and that the Government issued public notice, inviting tenders proposing to sell bits of land of different sizes, situated at Kokapet Village and according to Government the upset 3 price itself was quoted at Rs.4.5crores per acre and the actual purchase bids were between 12 to 15 crores. The land in area has been notified as multi purpose zone and HUDA has given permission for 60 storied twin towers which is in the vicinity of the land under acquisition and the land is surrounded by the commercial complexes, schools and residential colonies etc.

4.It is further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the registered Sale deeds vide document bearing

Nos. 10389/2004, 10388/2004 dt.06.10.2004 and 10378/2004, 10377/2004 dated 08.10.2004, 10378/2004, 3301/2004 dt.

06.10.2004 and 11.2.2004 and similarly 2026 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004, 10324/2005, 1303/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 10479/2004 and 10478/2004, 3302/2004 dt.13.10.2004 and 11.2.2004, 2035/2004, 3124/2005, 4620/2005 dt.25.02.2004, 28.02.2005 and 06.04.2005 respectively which were purchased for valuable consideration much prior to the acquisition proceedings.

5.It is further contended that the award proceeding does not at all disclose the values ascribable any payable towards fruit- bearing plants based on their value nor does it reflect any estimate that was carried out concerning the structures raised thereon and their notional value as are required by the Horticulture Department in respect of the fruit bearing plants, which are being reared and are standing thereon, loss to such valuable produce and wealth is always 4 taken into consideration by virtue of the existing G.Os and laying down the guidelines for fixation of compensation and hence the award is lopsided and needs to be reconsidered. The Respondent /

Land acquisition officer failed to look at the purport and application of the provisions contained in Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition

Act which requires solatium to be paid and the Land Acquisition officer did not have any regard to the existing market value during the said period in the locality taking into consideration the laying of

Highway abutting the lands under acquisition. Hence the market value needs to be determined based on various other contemporaneous documents executed in the locality and the prevalent market rates in the locality based on the rapid development and changes which has taken place in 2 to 4 years prior to the Notification which are once again reflected in the post notification auctions conducted in the locality.

6.It is further contended that the claimant wanted to raise 20 storied building in his land for better future of his family and having parted with his land for public purpose, claimant suffers heavy loss in monetary terms and no land is available in that area for the said price and that the compensation awarded by the Respondent /

LAO is inadequate and has no relevance to the prevailing market value which is not less than 15 crores per acre. Therefore, it is prayed to award compensation amount for the land acquired @ Rs.15 crores 5 per acre and all other benefits under the amended provision of the land Acquisition Act, 68 of 1984.

7.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the

Respondent/ LAO is just and fair and the claimant herein is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

2. Whether the solatium and interest are to be awarded as per the provisions of Amendment Land

Acquisition Act, 1984 (Act No.68/1984)?

3. To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the contention of Claimant, he got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3293/2004,

Dt.11.2.2004, Ex.A2 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3294/2004,

Dt.11.2.2004, Ex.A3 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc

No.10388/2004, Dt.06.10.2004, Ex.A4 is certified copy of Sale deed

Doc No.1303/2005, Dt.04.02.2005, Ex.A5 is certified copy of information provided by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority,under RTI. RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of Respondent/ LAO. Ex.B1 is copy of Award.

9. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the case records.

6

10.POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

The learned counsel for the Claimant has contended that, the

Respondent/LAO did not consider that contemporaneous sales took place in the past three years in the correct perspective. It is not known why the sales statics of 2003 at Serial No.15 which pertains to

Sy.No.204 /E of Narsingi Village for the rate per acre Rs.1,41,92,391/- was not taken into consideration, the acquired land is adjacent to the said Survey number. The sales which are referred in page Nos. 36 and 37 of the Award are not taken into consideration, Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 sale deeds are on 11.02.2004, just two months prior to the announcement of ORR Project and 1 year 10 months prior to the notification on 13.12.2005, Ac 3.15 ½ gts land in each Sy Nos. 187, 189, 193 are also notified for acquisition was sold for sale consideration @ Rs.31,00,000/- per acre, that under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, the son T.Devender and grand daughter T.Pavani of claimant in this

OP has sold for a sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. The respondent / LAO referred to a Sale Deed executed in respect of land in Sy.No.205, which according to the notification is of

Government land. As per the award at page No.23 serial No.41 of 2003 and Sl.No.34 of 2005 represents the Sy.No.205 of Narsingi

Village, originally classified as Government Land, more than 66 acres of land. As per the Award the land is sub-divided as 205/1, 205/2, 205/3, 205/4 and after taking permission the land was sold. While in 7 the same Survey number in 2003 when the land is about

Rs.17,00,000/- it is not known how the land in 2005 is about Rs.7.56 lakhs. The sale deeds and the permissions claimed by the

Respondent have deliberately not been produced before the Court.

Further those lands are not comparable to private patta lands and in order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the follows decisions:

1. State of Punjab and another v. Hans Raj (D) by L.Rs and Others 1994 (5) SCC p.734, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times for fixing market value of acquired land if followed could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched to be sale of acquired land. It is well settled that genuine and bonafide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence, the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired land possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent person acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

8

2. Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa 2010(13 )SCC 710 at para No.20 in page Nos. 715-16, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that “ the legal position is that even there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars , which is a bonafide transaction will be considered. Where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices ranged in a narrow band with, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price, but where the values disclose in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands are that the lower value sales is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons.

Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to.

3. Valliyammal and Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land

Acquisition) and Ors decided in Batch SLP Nos. 22086-22087

of 2009, dt. 01.08.2011.

4. Salaha Begum and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer (Civil Appeal No.6414 of 2012 , dt.03.12.2012).

5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jitendra Kumar (AIR 1982

SC 876) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that post notification sale

transaction can be taken into consideration for determination of

Market Value at the time of acquisition.

9

6. In Chiman Lal v. Special Acquisition Officer, Poona (1988) 3 SCC.

11.Basing on the principles rendered in the afore mentioned judgments, the learned Counsel for the claimant prayed to pass award by fixing fair compensation @ Rs.14.05 crores per acre with all other benefits basing on comparable sales method and as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 68 of 1984.

12.The claimant / PW1 (T.Chittaiah S/o Kottaiah) filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination, affirmed on oath reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the claim petition. The main contention of PW1 is that the Respondent/ LAO passed award dated 3.10.2007 to an extent of Ac 5.08 gts of land in Sy.Nos.176 and 177 determining the value of land @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and total compensation Rs.71,81,509/- for lands, buildings, trees including other benefits i.e., solatium and additional market value, he received the said amount under protest and requested the LAO to make reference to the Civil Court for fixing just and fair compensation

U/s.18 of LA Act, hence the present OP.

13.It is further deposed by PW1 that the proposal of development of Outer Ring Road was done through G.O.Ms No.459

MA. Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) dated 29.10.2004 and the land acquired was not part of the original alignment and there was an alignment change as per G.O.Ms. No.8, 10 dt.12.12.2005 and the Government has approved the final alignment including an extent of Ac 48.13 gts land situated at Narsingi Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, for formation of Outer Ring Road. The

Government issued public notice by advertising in the local newspaper on 27.06.2006 for sale of plots through a public auction to be held on 20.07.2006 inviting tenders proposing to sell bits of lands different sizes, situated at Kokapet village. According to Government, the upset price itself was quoted @ Rs.4.5 crores per acre and the actual purchase were between Rs.6.10 and 14.45 crores per acre. The lands under auction and his lands under acquisition are similar in nature, situated nearer to Gachibowli, Knowledge corridor of

Hyderabad, Extention of financial District. within one kilometer of radius of his land, under acquisition, IIIT, ISB, Infosys, Wipro, Microsoft and Polaris were established. The lands in the area including his land has been notified as a multipurpose zone and HUDA has given permission for 60 storied twin towers, which can be viewed from his lands. The land acquisition officer failed to appreciate the prevalent market rates in the locality, more in the light of open auction held in the locality concerning the lands belongs to the Government purchased by the private parties popularly known as Golden Mile which lands are similarly situated to those acquired under the present notification. The land acquisition officer did not refer the following documents forth coming to the market value of the land.

11

S.No. Sale Deed No. Survey No. Date of Valuation Extent of

Sale per acre land 13293/2004187,189 and 11.2.2004Rs.31,00,000/- Ac 3.15 ½ 193 of gts Narsingi Village 23294/2004187,189 and 11.2.2004Rs.31,00,000/- Ac 3.15 ½ 193 of gts Narsingi Village 310388/2004190, 201/A 06.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 1.21 gts and 202/A of Narsingi Village 41303/2005191, 192/C 04.02.2005 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts of Narsingi Village 510377/2004198/P , 197/08.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts P and 199/A of Narsingi Village 610370/2004199/A of 08.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts Narsingi Village

14.PW1 further deposed that during Award enquiry

M/s.Jayabheri Private Limited submitted their claim on 07.04.2007 and submitted document Nos. 10388/2004 dt.06.10.2004 and 10378/2004 dt.08.10.2004, 10377/2004 dated 08.10.2004, 10387/2004 dt.06.10.2004, 3301/2004 11.2.2004, 2026 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004, 1032/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 1303/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 10479/2004 dt.13.10.2004, 10478/2004, dt. 13.10.2004, 3302/2004 dt.11.2.2004, 2035/2004 dt.25.02.2004, 3124/2005 dt.28.02.2005, 4620/2005 dt.06.04.2005, pertaining to the sales in above said Survey numbers are adjacent to the lands of claimant herein and the said 12 sale deeds were executed prior to the original notification dated 29.10.2004 and valuation under the said sale deeds is minimum of

Rs.30,00,000/-. The lands acquired under notification are very valuable in nature, having potential to use for multi storied and commercial buildings. The LAO failed to consider the above said documents for the purpose of fixing fair market price, in contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to look at the purport and application of the provisions contained under Section 23 (1-A) of Land Acquisition Act which requires solatium to be paid.

The Land Acquisition Officer failed to consider the prevalent market value in the locality, basing on the rapid development and changes which have taken place in 2 to 4 years prior to the notification in the post notification auction conduct in the locality. The sale carried out by the State of Andhra Pradesh under public auction need to be taken into consideration in the light of Judgment and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

15.PW1 further deposed that having parted with the land, he suffered heavy monetary loss as he wanted to construct 20 storied building for the better future of his family as there is no developed land available in that area to purchase the land for the price fixed by the LAO. In support of said contention PW1 placed reliance upon

Exs.A1 to A5.

13

16.In cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that PW1 purchased the land total extent of Ac 8.26 gts in Sy.No.176 and and 177 in the year 1982 along with five others and out of said extent, the

Respondent/ LAO acquired Ac 5.08 gts and still he is having Ac 3.18 gts of land adjacent to the outer ring road and the date of notification is 13.12.2005. PW1 challenged the changing alignment of outer ring road in the Hon'ble High Court of AP. PW1 denied suggestion that the auctioned lands are different from the lands under auction are situated at Kokapet and they are far away from the lands under acquisition. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that the HUDA gave permission for the construction of 60 storied twin towers and he has not obtained any permission by filing application for construction of 20 storied building in his land. PW1 further admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that the market value of the land per acre is Rs.14 crores as on the date of 4(1) notification.

17.RW1 Smt B.Aparna , Special Deputy Collector for Unit V,

ORR Project filed her evidence affidavit, affirmed on oath admitting the fact that Respondent/ LAO has acquired land admeasuring Ac 5.08 gts in Sy.Nos. 176 and 177 of Narsingi village for formation of outer ring road. There is no dispute in regard to the ownership of

Claimant / PW1 for the land under acquisition.

14

18.RW1 further deposed that the Government of AP issued notification dated 29.10.2004 for acquisition of land to an extent of

Ac 48.13 gts in Sy.Nos.96, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205/1,205/2, 205/3 and 205/4 of

Narsingi Village, the acquisition proposals were received from Estate

Officer, HUDA. The land got sub-divided by the survey staff, the LAO conducted joint inspection of patta lands and government lands under acquisition, fruit bearing trees, structures and open borewells existing in patta lands through which the alignment of outer ring road is passing. Draft notification under 4(1), draft declaration under section 6 of LA Act under urgency clause in respect of the lands were submitted to Project Director, the proceedings were published in AP

Gazette ORR No.181 dated 13.12.2005, draft notification were published on 15.12.2005 and 16.12.2005. The notices u/s.5-A has been issued on 01.07.2006 calling for objections. 5-A enquiry has been conducted and as per the SD records prepared, the alignment is not passing through survey numbers 96, 197 and 198 accordingly individual notices were served on the concerned persons inviting claims and objections on 24.11.2006. Accordingly award enquiry was conducted on 10.04.2007, during award enquiry the land owners of

Sy.Nos.176 and 177 appeared and in order to determine the prevailing market value of land, the LAO obtained sales statistics presiding three years from the draft notification with effect from 15 13.12.2002 to 13.12.2005 obtained from the Sub Registrar,

Rajendranagar, inspected the lands of Narsingi Village coming under the alignment along with Estate Officer, HUDA on 12.07.2007.

19.RW1 further stated in her evidence that, the sales took place in the acquired lands in the vicinity are taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing market value. The Assistant Director of

Horticulture, DFO, RR District, Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj have been addressed letters for conducting survey of structures, trees and borewell etc., to estimate the value. Assistant Director of

Horticulture furnished the valuation of trees, Executive Engineer ,

R&B furnished valuation of structures. As per the sales statistics (332 sales ) took place during the preceding three years to the date of notification i.e., 13.12.2005, all the sales pertains to small plots meant for non agricultural purpose, cannot be taken as guiding factor to determine true value, hence discarded that 143 sales took place on acreage basis, the serial No.34 of 2005 sales relates to Sy.No.205 is adopted for fixation of market value, accordingly the market value for acquired lands in the present OP were fixed @ Rs.7.56 lakhs per acre. Even as per the preliminary valuation statement issued by Sub

Registrar, Rajendranagar shows that the land in and around the vicinity of acquired land, the market value of the land is Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and the same has been submitted to the Project Director, which has been approved and that the Respondent/ LAO has fixed 16 the market value @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre considering all the facts in and around that area, the claimant has not filed any proof of evidence to substantiate his claim, therefore the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

20.In her cross-examination, RW1 admitted that, the date of 4(1) notification dated 13.12.2005 is relevant for determining compensation and the Sy.No.205 is Government land it was allotted to Ex-Service men and freedom fighters and after following due procedure and obtaining permission from the Government, they have sold the property and the Sale Deeds mentioned in page Nos.36 and 37 of award proceedings are executed between 13.12.2002 to 13.12.2005 and as per Ex.A1 sale deed the sale consideration per acre was mentioned as Rs.31,00,000/- in Sy.No.187, 189 and 193 and as per

Ex.A3 sale deed, the sale consideration is Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.Nos.

191 and 192 and as per Ex.A2 sale deed the sale consideration for acre is Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.No.189 and 193 and she doesn't know the basic price fixed by the Government for auctioning the lands in

Kokapet and she doesn't know the topography of acquired lands. It was suggested to RW1 that Sy.No.205 is not adjacent to the lands under acquisition and she did not produce the sale deeds relied upon by the LAO.

21.As seen from the Ex.A1 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc

No.3293/2004, Dt.11.2.2004) pertains to the Sy.No.187, 189 and 193 17 of Narsingi Village reflects that the sale price of one acre is

Rs.31,00,000/- as on 11.2.2004. As seen from Ex.A2 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3294/2004, Dt.11.2.2004) executed in favour of

M/s.Jayabheri Properties Private Limited in respect of Sy.Nos.187,189 and 193 of Narsingi Village reflects that market price shown for one acre is Rs.31,00,000/-. As seen from Ex.A3 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.10388/2004, Dt.06.10.2004) executed by Mr.T.Devender

S/o. T.Chittaiah (son of claimant herein ) in favour of M/s.Jayabheri

Properties Private Limited to an extent of Ac.7.00 in Sy.Nos. 189, 190, 200, 201 and 202 reflects that sale price is Rs.30,00,000/- per acre.

As seen from Ex.A4 (certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.1303/2005,

Dt.04.02.2005), executed by T.Pavani, daughter of T.Devender (grand daughter of claimant herein) executed in favour of

M/s.Jayabheri Constructions Private Limited to an extent of Sy.Nos.

191 and 192 reflects that sale price per one acre is Rs.30,00,000/-.

22.In the present OP, the land under acquisition is pertain to

Sy.Nos. 176 and 177 of Narsingi village. The contention of PW1 is that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to submit sale deed relied upon by him for fixing the market value and the lands of Kokapet are at distance of 4 kms to the Narsingi and the Government conducted auction and the auction bids are raising between Rs.6.10 crores to

Rs.14.45 crores and the Respondent fixed very meager amount for their lands under acquisition and as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, his son 18

T.Devender and his grand daughter namely T.Pavani executed sale deeds in favour of M/s. Jayabheri Properties Private Limited in the year 2004 and 2005 for an amount of Rs.31,00,000/- and

Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.Nos. 187, 189 and 193 and the LAO has taken into consideration of value of SY.No.205 which is no way concerned and he is seeking enhancement of compensation for the land acquired @ Rs.14 crore per acre along with other benefits.

23.As seen from the case record, the date of notification was 13.12.2005. The Respondent/ LAO has adopted the market value of land in SY.No.205 as guiding factor, but they have not submitted any documentary proof to show that the lands in Sy.Nos. 176 and 177 are adjacent or similar to Sy.No.205 which is Government land. As per the award copy, the nature of land under acquisition is dry agricultural land. Admittedly Respondent/ LAO has failed to submit the prevailing market value certificates of Sy.Nos.176 and 177 issued by SRO, Rajendranagar as on the date of notification or three years prior to the date of notification from 2002 to 2005. As per the award, the LAO has determined the market value of land @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre basing on the market value of Sy.No.205 and he awarded compensation of Rs.70,38,278/- to an extent of Ac 5.03 gts of land in

Sy.No.176 including 30% solatium, 12% additional market value, from the date of notification to date of award i.e., from 17.12.2005 to 19 3.10.2007, structures and trees and Rs.1,43,231/- to an extent of

Ac .05 gts of land in Sy.No.177 including all benefits.

24.As seen from the evidence on record, the Respondent/

LAO, has failed to explain on what basis he adopted market value @

Rs.7,56,000/- per acre by taking into consideration of Sy.No.205 and whether it is adjacent to the land under acquisition situated in Sy

Nos. 176 and 177. The prayer of claimant is that he wants to enhance the market price from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.14 crores basing on the auctions conducted by the Government at Kokapet village and PW1 submitted Ex.A5. As seen from Ex.A5 / certified copy of information obtained from Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, under RTI showing the details of auction notification and names of highest bidders of the land in Sy.Nos. 100, 109, 114, 116, 117 and 147 of Kokapet village dated 20.7.2006 that land price is between Rs.

6 crores to Rs.14.45 crores per acre. As per his contention, Kokapet village is at distance of 4 kms to the land under acquisition which is highly potential for commercial development, situated nearer to

Special economic zone, nearer to RGI Airport and he wants to construct multi storied building for better future of his family.

25.In Major General Kapil Mehra and others vs. Union of

India and another (2015 (2)SCC 262) wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court opined that “Auction sales stands upon on a different footing.

When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an 20 element to competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel over other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction-sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction-sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc., to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction- sale transactions, when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land.

26.Having regard to the rationale observed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, the contention of the claimant (PW1) cannot be taken into consideration as the lands in

Kokapet financial district are situated at different location from the lands under acquisition. Further the claimant did not adduce any evidence in that regard except filing of Ex.A5 auction particulars of the lands in Kokapet village which are pertains to different village which is notified as special economic zone.

21

27.Having regard to registered sale deeds under Exs A1 to A4 furnished by the claimant, sale transactions took place in the years 2004-2005 in respect of Sy. Nos. 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 and 202 of Narsigi Village, the market value of the said land per acre is @Rs.30,00,000/- to Rs. 31,00,000/-, but the land under acquisition is of different survey numbers to the survey numbers mentioned in Exs.A1 to Ex.A4. The claimant has failed to submit any topograph or sketch map to show that the lands mentioned in afore mentioned sale deeds are adjacent to his land in Sy.Nos. 176 and 177, even though they are situated in the same village.

28.In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Limited Vs Rameshbai Jivanbhai Patel and Ors decided in Civil

Appeal Nos. 5192, 5193, 5197 and 5198 of 2002, dt.31.07.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed at para No.11 that “ primarily ,the increase in land prices depends upon four factors situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand or land in area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand or land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as 22 compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50 % or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2 % per annum.

There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/ semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices.

Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

29.Taking into account of all the above factors and escalation of market prices in the surroundings areas of the Hyderabad city and

Narsingi village is highly potential area and nearer to the special economic zone in Kokapet village, I am of the considered opinion that the Respondent/ LAO has failed to fix just and fair market value for the lands under acquisition. Therefore, I am of the considered 23 opinion that it will be just and fair to enhance the market value of land under acquisition from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.28,00,000/- per acre as on the date of notification i.e., 13.12.2005.

30.In respect of compensation awarded to the structures and trees existing in the acquired land, the LAO has fixed Rs.8,93,118/- to structures and Rs.3,10,149 + Rs.19,853/- for the trees in respect of

Sy.No.176 basing on the report of Asst. Director of Agriculture and

Execute Engineer. But the claimant / PW1 did not adduce any evidence to show that the value fixed by the LAO for the structures and trees is inadequate. Hence, the claim of the claimant for enhancement of the value of structures and trees is not considered and the valuation fixed by the LAO is accepted as just and fair.

Relying on the principle rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore mentioned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled for all the benefits i.e., additional market value, solatium and interest as per the provision of the amended Act, 1984 (Act No.68/1984). Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

31.POINT No. 3:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows :

1) The compensation amount of Rs.7,56,000/- per acre fixed by the Respondent / LAO for the acquired lands is hereby enhanced to Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

24

2) The Claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- from the date of section 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession.

3) The claimant is further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking over possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit or payment as the case may be on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

4) The claimant is entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

5) The claimant is entitled for costs of the petition and for the above mentioned enhanced amounts as clearly stated in the Judgment , to the extent of land acquired from them.

6) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the balance to be paid.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction,

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27 th December, 2018.

For Trial of offences under SC/ST(POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist.

Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

25

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Claimants:

PW1 :T.Chittaiah

On behalf of the Referring Officer:

RW1 :B.Aparna

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

On behalf of the Claimants:

Ex.A1:CC of Sale Deed No.3293/2004 dt.11.02.2004

Ex.A2:CC of Sale Deed No.3294/2004 dt.11.02.2004

Ex.A3:CC of Sale Deed No.10388/2004, dt.06.10.2004

Ex.A4:CC of Sale Deed No.1303/2005, dt.04.02.2005

Ex.A5:Information provided by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, under RTI, dt.29.10.2015

On behalf of the Referring Officer:

Ex.B1:Attested copy of award proceeding No.82/L.A/ORR/Unit-VII/ 05, dt.03.10.2007

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, cum Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, RR. Dist.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989- CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT :- SMT.A.BHARATHI.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989

CUM VII ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, R.R. DIST

Thursday, on this 27th day of December, 2018.

LAOP. No. 457 OF 2011

Between:-

S.V.R.K.Prasad, S/o. S.G. Rao, Aged about55 years, R/o Gollagudem Village, Adavinekkalam Panchayat, Akirpalli Mandalam, Krishna District. … Claimant. AND

Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Unit VI Outer Ring Road Project, HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. … Referring Officer

This Reference is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Government Pleader for the Referring Officer, Sri G. Ram Chandra Rao, Counsel for the claimant and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a reference U/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to enhance compensation amount granted @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and awarding total compensation of Rs.13,78,148/- (including structure and standing trees) for the acquisition of land to an extent of Ac 01.04 gts of Narsingi

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide Award proceedings No.82/ORR/LA/Unit VII/2005, dt.03-10-2007 passed by the 2

LAO/ Spl. Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-VII, ORR, HMDA, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad in favour of Claimant Sri S.V.R.K.Prasad, S/o. S.G.Rao.

2. Brief averments of the claim statement are as follows:

The claimant is absolute owner of Ac 1.04 gts of land in Sy.No.

176 situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. The Land Acquisition Officer acquired total extent of land admeasuring Ac.23.23 gts in Sy.Nos. 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 199, 200, 201 & 202 situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of formation of Outer

Ring Road and passed an Award proceedings No.82/LA/

ORR/Unit-VII/2005, Dt.03.10.2007 by fixing the market value/ compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre. The

Claimant and others being dis-satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, they sought reference to this court for adjudication of market value of the land under acquisition.

3.It is further contended that order of the Land Acquisition

Officer and the proceeding issued in Form IX under Land Acquisition Act is contrary to the facts, circumstances, law and weight of evidence of case and that the Government issued public notice, inviting tenders proposing to sell bits of land of different sizes, situated at Kokapet

Village and according to Government the upset price itself was quoted at

Rs.4.5crores per acre and the actual purchase bids were between 12 to 15 crores. The land in area has been notified as multi purpose zone and

HUDA has given permission for 60 storied twin towers which is in the 3 vicinity of the land under acquisition and the land is surrounded by the commercial complexes, schools and residential colonies etc.

4.It is further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the registered Sale deeds vide document bearing Nos.

10389/2004, 10388/2004 dt.06.10.2004 and 10378/2004, 10377/2004

dated 08.10.2004, 10378/2004, 3301/2004 dt. 06.10.2004 and 11.2.2004

and similarly 2026 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004, 10324/2005, 1303/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 10479/2004 and 10478/2004, 3302/2004 dt.13.10.2004 and 11.2.2004, 2035/2004, 3124/2005, 4620/2005 dt.25.02.2004, 28.02.2005 and 06.04.2005 respectively which were purchased for valuable consideration much prior to the acquisition proceedings.

5.It is further contended that the award proceeding does not at all disclose the values ascribable any payable towards fruit-bearing plants based on their value nor does it reflect any estimate that was carried out concerning the structures raised thereon and their notional value as are required by the Horticulture Department in respect of the fruit bearing plants, which are being reared and are standing thereon, loss to such valuable produce and wealth is always taken into consideration by virtue of the existing G.Os and laying down the guidelines for fixation of compensation and hence the award is lopsided and needs to be reconsidered. The Respondent / Land acquisition officer failed to look at the purport and application of the provisions contained in Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act which requires solatium to be paid and the

Land Acquisition officer did not have any regard to the existing market 4 value during the said period in the locality taking into consideration the laying of Highway abutting the lands under acquisition. Hence the market value needs to be determined based on various other contemporaneous documents executed in the locality and the prevalent market rates in the locality based on the rapid development and changes which has taken place in 2 to 4 years prior to the Notification which are once again reflected in the post notification auctions conducted in the locality.

6.It is further contended that the claimant wanted to raise 20 storied building in his land for better future of his family and having parted with his land for public purpose, claimant suffers heavy loss in monetary terms and no land is available in that area for the said price and that the compensation awarded by the Respondent / LAO is inadequate and has no relevance to the prevailing market value which is not less than 15 crores per acre. Therefore, it is prayed to award compensation amount for the land acquired @ Rs.15 crores per acre and all other benefits under the amended provision of the land Acquisition

Act, 68 of 1984.

7.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the

Respondent/ LAO is just and fair and the claimant herein is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

5

2. Whether the solatium and interest are to be awarded as per the provisions of Amendment Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (Act No.68/1984)?

3. To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the contention of Claimant, his son

Soma Sekhar Sajja was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3293/2004,

Dt.11.2.2004, Ex.A2 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.3294/2004,

Dt.11.2.2004, Ex.A3 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.10388/2004,

Dt.06.10.2004, Ex.A4 is certified copy of Sale deed Doc No.1303/2005,

Dt.04.02.2005, Ex.A5 is certified copy of information provided by

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority,under RTI and Ex.A6 is copy of special power of Attorney executed by claimant. RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of Respondent/ LAO. Ex.B1 is copy of Award.

9. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the case records.

10.POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

The learned counsel for the Claimant has contended that, the

Respondent/LAO did not consider that contemporaneous sales took place in the past three years in the correct perspective. It is not known why the sales statics of 2003 at Serial No.15 which pertains to

Sy.No.204 /E of Narsingi Village for the rate per acre Rs.1,41,92,391/- was not taken into consideration, the acquired land is adjacent to the said 6

Survey number. The sales which are referred in page Nos. 36 and 37 of the Award are not taken into consideration, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 sale deeds are on 11.02.2004, just two months prior to the announcement of ORR

Project and 1 year 10 months prior to the notification on 13.12.2005, Ac 3.15 ½ gts land in each Sy Nos. 187, 189, 193 are also notified for acquisition was sold for sale consideration @ Rs.31,00,000/- per acre, that under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 sold for a sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-.

The respondent / LAO referred to a Sale Deed executed in respect of land in Sy.No.205, which according to the notification is of Government land. As per the award at page No.23 serial No.41 of 2003 and Sl.No.34 of 2005 represents the Sy.No.205 of Narsingi Village, originally classified as

Government Land, more than 66 acres of land. As per the Award the land is sub-divided as 205/1, 205/2, 205/3, 205/4 and after taking permission the land was sold. While in the same Survey number in 2003 when the land is about Rs.17,00,000/- it is not known how the land in 2005 is about

Rs.7.56 lakhs. The sale deeds and the permissions claimed by the

Respondent have deliberately not been produced before the Court.

Further those lands are not comparable to private patta lands and in order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the follows decisions:

1. State of Punjab and another v. Hans Raj (D) by L.Rs and

Others 1994 (5) SCC p.734, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times for fixing market value of 7 acquired land if followed could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched to be sale of acquired land. It is well settled that genuine and bonafide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence, the bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired land possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent person acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.

2. Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa 2010(13 )SCC 710 at para No.20 in page Nos. 715-16, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “ the legal position is that even there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars , which is a bonafide transaction will be considered.

Where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices ranged in a narrow band with, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price, but where the values disclose in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands are that the lower value sales is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to.

8

3. Valliyammal and Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land

Acquisition) and Ors decided in Batch SLP Nos. 22086-22087 of 2009, dt. 01.08.2011.

4.Salaha Begum and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer (Civil Appeal No.6414 of 2012 , dt.03.12.2012).

5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jitendra Kumar (AIR 1982 SC

876) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that post notification sale transaction can be taken into consideration for determination of

Market Value at the time of acquisition.

6. In Chiman Lal v. Special Acquisition Officer, Poona (1988) 3 SCC.

11.Basing on the principles rendered in the afore mentioned judgments, the learned Counsel for the claimant prayed to pass award by fixing fair compensation @ Rs.14.05 crores per acre with all other benefits basing on comparable sales method and as per the provisions of

Land Acquisition Act, 68 of 1984.

12. PW1( S.Soma Sekhar), Special Power of Attorney holder of claimant namely S.V.R.K.Prasad, filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination, affirmed on oath reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the claim statement. The main contention of PW1 is that his father purchased Ac 1.04 gts of land in Sy.No.176 of Narsingi Village, the

Respondent/ LAO passed award dated 3.10.2007 to an extent of Ac 1.04 gts of land in Sy.No.176 determining the value of land @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and total compensation Rs.13,78,148/- for lands, buildings, trees 9 including other benefits i.e., solatium and additional market value, he received the said amount under protest and requested the LAO to make reference to the Civil Court for fixing just and fair compensation U/s.18 of

LA Act, hence the present OP.

13.It is further deposed by PW1 that the proposal of development of Outer Ring Road was done through G.O.Ms No.459 MA.

Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) dated 29.10.2004 and the land acquired was not part of the original alignment and there was an alignment change as per G.O.Ms. No.8, dt.12.12.2005 and the

Government has approved the final alignment including an extent of Ac 48.13 gts land situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, for formation of Outer Ring Road. The Government issued public notice by advertising in the local newspaper on 27.06.2006 for sale of plots through a public auction to be held on 20.07.2006 inviting tenders proposing to sell bits of lands different sizes, situated at Kokapet village. According to

Government, the upset price itself was quoted @ Rs.4.5 crores per acre and the actual purchase were between Rs.6.10 and 14.45 crores per acre.

The lands under auction and his lands under acquisition are similar in nature, situated nearer to Gachibowli, Knowledge corridor of Hyderabad,

Extention of financial District, within one kilometer of radius of his land under acquisition, IIIT, ISB, Infosys, Wipro, Microsoft and Polaris were established. The lands in the area including his land has been notified as a multipurpose zone and HUDA has given permission for 60 storied twin towers, which can be viewed from his lands. The land acquisition officer 10 failed to appreciate the prevalent market rates in the locality, more in the light of open auction held in the locality concerning the lands belongs to the Government purchased by the private parties popularly known as

Golden Mile which lands are similarly situated to those acquired under the present notification. The land acquisition officer did not refer the following documents forth coming to the market value of the land.

S.No. Sale Deed No. Survey No. Date of Valuation Extent of

Sale per acre land 13292/2004187,189 and 11.2.2004Rs.31,00,000/- Ac 3.15 ½ 193 of gts Narsingi Village 23294/2004187,189 and 11.2.2004Rs.31,00,000/- Ac 3.15 ½ 193 of gts Narsingi Village 310388/2004190, 201/A 06.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 1.21 gts and 202/A of Narsingi Village 41303/2005191, 192/C 04.02.2005 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts of Narsingi Village 510377/2004198/P , 197/08.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts P and 199/A of Narsingi Village 610370/2004199/A of 08.10.2004 Rs.30,00,000/- Ac 2.00 gts Narsingi Village

14.PW1 further deposed that during Award enquiry

M/s.Jayabheri Private Limited submitted their claim on 07.04.2007 and submitted document Nos. 10388/2004 dt.06.10.2004 and 10378/2004 dt.08.10.2004, 10377/2004 dated 08.10.2004, 10387/2004 dt.06.10.2004, 3301/2004 11.2.2004, 2026 of 2004 dated 25.02.2004, 1032/2005 11 dt.04.02.2005, 1303/2005 dt.04.02.2005, 10479/2004 dt.13.10.2004, 10478/2004, dt. 13.10.2004, 3302/2004 dt.11.2.2004, 2035/2004 dt.25.02.2004, 3124/2005 dt.28.02.2005, 4620/2005 dt.06.04.2005, pertaining to the sales in above said Survey numbers are adjacent to their lands and the said sale deeds were executed prior to the original notification dated 29.10.2004 and valuation under the said sale deeds is minimum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The lands acquired under notification are very valuable in nature, having potential to use for multi storied and commercial buildings. The LAO has failed to consider the above said documents for the purpose of fixing fair market price, in contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.

The Land Acquisition Officer failed to look at the purport and application of the provisions contained under Section 23 (1-A) of Land Acquisition Act which requires solatium to be paid. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to consider the prevalent market value in the locality, basing on the rapid development and changes which have taken place in 2 to 4 years prior to the notification in the post notification auction conduct in the locality.

The sale carried out by the State of Andhra Pradesh under public auction need to be taken into consideration in the light of Judgment and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

15.PW1 further deposed that having parted with the land, his father suffered heavy monetary loss as he wanted to construct 20 storied building for the better future of his family as there is no developed land 12 available in that area to purchase the land for the price fixed by the LAO.

In support of said contention PW1 placed reliance upon Exs.A1 to A6.

16.In cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that his father purchased the land total extent of Ac 1.04 gts in Sy.No.176 in the year 1982 along with five others and out of said extent, the Respondent/ LAO acquired Ac 5.08 gts. His father challenged the changing alignment of outer ring road in the Hon'ble High Court of AP. PW1 denied suggestion that the auctioned lands are different from the lands under auction are situated at Kokapet and they are far away from the lands under acquisition. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that the HUDA gave permission for the construction of 60 storied twin towers and he has not obtained any permission by filing application for construction of 20 storied building in his land. PW1 further admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that the market value of the land per acre is Rs.14 crores as on the date of 4(1) notification.

17.RW1 Smt B.Aparna , Special Deputy Collector for Unit V, ORR

Project filed her evidence affidavit, affirmed on oath admitting the fact that Respondent/ LAO has acquired land admeasuring Ac 1.04 gts in

Sy.No. 176 of Narsingi village for formation of outer ring road. There is no dispute in regard to the ownership of Claimant for the land under acquisition.

18.RW1 further deposed that the Government of AP issued notification dated 29.10.2004 for acquisition of land to an extent of 13

Ac 48.13 gts in Sy.Nos.96, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205/1,205/2, 205/3 and 205/4 of Narsingi Village, the acquisition proposals were received from Estate Officer, HUDA. The land got sub-divided by the survey staff, the LAO conducted joint inspection of patta lands and government lands under acquisition, fruit bearing trees, structures and open borewells existing in patta lands through which the alignment of outer ring road is passing. Draft notification under 4(1), draft declaration under section 6 of LA Act under urgency clause in respect of the lands were submitted to Project Director, the proceedings were published in AP Gazette ORR No.181 dated 13.12.2005, draft notification were published on 15.12.2005 and 16.12.2005. The notices u/s.5-A has been issued on 01.07.2006 calling for objections. 5-A enquiry has been conducted and as per the SD records prepared, the alignment is not passing through survey numbers 96, 197 and 198 accordingly individual notices were served on the concerned persons inviting claims and objections on 24.11.2006. Accordingly award enquiry was conducted on 10.04.2007, during award enquiry the land owners of Sy.Nos.176 and 177 appeared and in order to determine the prevailing market value of land, the LAO obtained sales statistics presiding three years from the draft notification with effect from 13.12.2002 to 13.12.2005 obtained from the Sub Registrar,

Rajendranagar, inspected the lands of Narsingi Village coming under the alignment along with Estate Officer, HUDA on 12.07.2007.

14

19.RW1 further stated in her evidence that, the sales took place in the acquired lands in the vicinity are taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing market value. The Assistant Director of Horticulture,

DFO, RR District, Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj have been addressed letters for conducting survey of structures, trees and borewell etc., to estimate the value. Assistant Director of Horticulture furnished the valuation of trees, Executive Engineer , R&B furnished valuation of structures. As per the sales statistics (332 sales ) took place during the preceding three years to the date of notification i.e., 13.12.2005, all the sales pertains to small plots meant for non agricultural purpose, cannot be taken as guiding factor to determine true value, hence discarded that 143 sales took place on acreage basis, the serial No.34 of 2005 sales relates to Sy.No.205 is adopted for fixation of market value, accordingly the market value for acquired lands in the present OP were fixed @

Rs.7.56 lakhs per acre. Even as per the preliminary valuation statement issued by Sub Registrar, Rajendranagar shows that the land in and around the vicinity of acquired land, the market value of the land is Rs.7,56,000/- per acre and the same has been submitted to the Project Director, which has been approved and that the Respondent/ LAO has fixed the market value @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre considering all the facts in and around that area, the claimant has not filed any proof of evidence to substantiate his claim, therefore the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

15

20.In her cross-examination, RW1 admitted that, the date of 4(1) notification dated 13.12.2005 is relevant for determining compensation and the Sy.No.205 is Government land it was allotted to Ex-Service men and freedom fighters and after following due procedure and obtaining permission from the Government, they have sold the property and the

Sale Deeds mentioned in page Nos.36 and 37 of award proceedings are executed between 13.12.2002 to 13.12.2005 and as per Ex.A1 sale deed the sale consideration per acre was mentioned as Rs.31,00,000/- in

Sy.No.187, 189 and 193 and as per Ex.A3 sale deed, the sale consideration is Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.Nos. 191 and 192 and as per Ex.A2 sale deed the sale consideration for acre is Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.No.189 and 193 and she doesn't know the basic price fixed by the Government for auctioning the lands in Kokapet and she doesn't know the topography of acquired lands.

It was suggested to RW1 that Sy.No.205 is not adjacent to the lands under acquisition and she did not produce the sale deeds relied upon by the LAO.

21.As seen from the Ex.A1 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc

No.3293/2004, Dt.11.2.2004) pertains to the Sy.No.187, 189 and 193 of

Narsingi Village reflects that the sale price of one acre is Rs.31,00,000/- as on 11.2.2004. As seen from Ex.A2 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc

No.3294/2004, Dt.11.2.2004) executed in favour of M/s.Jayabheri

Properties Private Limited in respect of Sy.Nos.187,189 and 193 of

Narsingi Village reflects that market price shown for one acre is

Rs.31,00,000/-. As seen from Ex.A3 ( certified copy of Sale deed Doc 16

No.10388/2004, Dt.06.10.2004) executed by T.Devender S/o. T.Chittaiah in favour of M/s.Jayabheri Properties Private Limited to an extent of

Ac.7.00 in Sy.Nos. 189, 190, 200, 201 and 202 reflects that sale price is

Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. As seen from Ex.A4 (certified copy of Sale deed

Doc No.1303/2005, Dt.04.02.2005), executed by T.Pavani executed in favour of M/s.Jayabheri Constructions Private Limited to an extent of

Sy.Nos. 191 and 192 reflects that sale price per one acre is

Rs.30,00,000/-.

22.In the present OP, the land under acquisition is pertain to

Sy.No. 176 of Narsingi village. The contention of PW1 is that the Land

Acquisition Officer failed to submit sale deed relied upon by them for fixing market value of lands under acquisition and the lands of Kokapet are at distance of 4 kms to the Narsingi and the Government conducted auction and the auction bids are raising between Rs.6.10 crores to

Rs.14.45 crores and the Respondent fixed very meager amount for their lands under acquisition and as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 sale deeds in favour of

M/s. Jayabheri Properties Private Limited in the year 2004 and 2005 for an amount of Rs.31,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- in Sy.Nos. 187, 189 and 193 and the LAO has taken into consideration of value of SY.No.205 which is no way concerned and he is seeking enhancement of compensation for the land acquired @ Rs.14 crore per acre along with other benefits.

23.As seen from the case record, the date of notification was 13.12.2005. The Respondent/ LAO has adopted the market value of land in SY.No.205 as guiding factor, but they have not submitted any 17 documentary proof to show that the lands in Sy.No. 176 is adjacent or similar to Sy.No.205 which is Government land. As per the award copy, the nature of land under acquisition is agricultural land. Admittedly

Respondent/ LAO has failed to submit the prevailing market value certificates of Sy.Nos.176 and 177 issued by SRO, Rajendranagar as on the date of notification or three years prior to the date of notification from 2002 to 2005. As per the award the LAO has determined the market value of land @ Rs.7,56,000/- per acre basing on the market value of

Sy.No.205 and he awarded compensation of Rs.70,38,278/- to an extent of Ac 5.03 gts of land in Sy.No.176 including 30% solatium, 12% additional market value, from the date of notification to date of award i.e., from 17.12.2005 to 3.10.2007, structures and trees and Rs.1,43,231/- to an extent of Ac .05 gts of land in Sy.No.177 including all benefits.

24.As seen from the evidence on record, the Respondent/ LAO, has failed to explain on what basis he adopted market value @

Rs.7,56,000/- per acre by taking into consideration of Sy.No.205 and whether it is adjacent to the land under acquisition situated in Sy Nos.

176 and 177. The prayer of claimant is that he wants to enhance the market price from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.14 crores basing on the auctions conducted by the Government at Kokapet village and PW1 submitted

Ex.A5. As seen from Ex.A5 / certified copy of information obtained from

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, under RTI showing the details of auction notification and names of highest bidders of the land in

Sy.Nos. 100, 109, 114, 116, 117 and 147 of Kokapet village dated 18 20.7.2006 that land price is between Rs. 6 crores to Rs.14.45 crores per acre. As per his contention, Kokapet village is at distance of 4 kms to the land under acquisition which is highly potential for commercial development, situated nearer to Special economic zone, nearer to RGI

Airport and he wants to construct multi storied building for better future of his family.

25.In Major General Kapil Mehra and others vs. Union of India and another (2015 (2)SCC 262) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that “Auction sales stands upon on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an element to competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel over other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction-sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction-sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc., to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction-sale transactions, when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land.

19

26.Having regard to the rationale observed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforementioned judgment, the contention of the claimant (PW1) cannot be taken into consideration as the lands in Kokapet financial district are situated at different location from the lands under acquisition. Further the claimant did not adduce any evidence in that regard except filing of Ex.A5 auction particulars of the lands in Kokapet village which are pertains to different village which is notified as special economic zone.

27.Having regard to registered sale deeds under Exs A1 to A4 furnished by the claimant, sale transactions took place in the years 2004- 2005 in respect of Sy.Nos. 189, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 and 202 of Narsigi Village, the market value of the said land per acre is @Rs.30,00,000/- to Rs. 31,00,000/-, but the land under acquisition is of different survey numbers to the survey numbers mentioned in Exs.A1 to

Ex.A4. The claimant has failed to submit any topograph or sketch map to show that the lands mentioned in afore mentioned sale deeds are adjacent to his land in Sy.Nos. 176 and 177, even though they are situated in the same village.

28.In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Limited Vs Rameshbai Jivanbhai Patel and Ors decided in Civil Appeal

Nos. 5192, 5193, 5197 and 5198 of 2002, dt.31.07.2008, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed at para No.11 that “ primarily ,the increase

in land prices depends upon four factors situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in 20 the area, and the demand or land in area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand or land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50 % or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2 % per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/ semi- urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas.

Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.

29.Taking into account of all the above factors and escalation of market prices in the surroundings areas of the Hyderabad city and 21

Narsingi village is highly potential area and nearer to the special economic zone in Kokapet village, I am of the considered opinion that the

Respondent/ LAO has failed to fix just and fair market value for the lands under acquisition. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it will be just and fair to enhance the market value of land under acquisition from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.28,00,000/- per acre as on the date of notification i.e., 13.12.2005.

30.In respect of compensation awarded to the standing trees existing in the acquired land, the LAO has fixed Rs.1,17,719/- for the trees in respect of Sy.No.176 basing on the report of Asst. Director of

Agriculture and Execute Engineer. But the claimant / PW1 did not adduce any evidence to show that the value fixed by the LAO for the trees is inadequate. Hence, the claim of the claimant for enhancement of the value of trees is not considered and the valuation fixed by the LAO is accepted as just and fair. Relying on the principle rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore mentioned judgments, I am of the

considered opinion that the claimant is entitled for all the benefits i.e.,

additional market value, solatium and interest as per the provision of the

amended Act, 1984 (Act No.68/1984). Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

31.POINT No. 3:

In the result, the reference is answered as follows :

22

1) The compensation amount of Rs.7,56,000/- per acre fixed by the Respondent / LAO for the acquired lands is hereby enhanced to Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

2) The Claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- from the date of section 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession.

3) The claimant is further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking over possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit or payment as the case may be on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

4) The claimant is entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced market value of Rs.28,00,000/- per acre.

5) The claimant is entitled for costs of the petition and for the above mentioned enhanced amounts as clearly stated in the

Judgment , to the extent of land acquired from them.

6) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the balance to be paid.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction,

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th December, 2018.

For Trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

23

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Claimants:

PW1 :Soma Sekhar Sajja

On behalf of the Referring Officer: RW1 :B.Aparna

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

On behalf of the Claimants:

Ex.A1:CC of Sale Deed No.3293/2004 dt.11.02.2004

Ex.A2:CC of Sale Deed No.3294/2004 dt.11.02.2004

Ex.A3:CC of Sale Deed No.10388/2004, dt.06.10.2004

Ex.A4:CC of Sale Deed No.1303/2005, dt.04.02.2005

Ex.A5:Information provided by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, under RTI, dt.29.10.2015

Ex.A6:Special Power of Attorney

On behalf of the Referring Officer:

Ex.B1:Attested copy of award proceeding No.82/L.A/ORR/Unit-VII/ 05, dt.03.10.2007

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, cum Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, RR. Dist.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT –CUM- VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. A. BHARATHI, Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act- cum- VII.Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

FRIDAY, ON THIS 28th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

SC/ST. SC. NO. 65 OF 2013

Cr.No., PRC No. and the file ofCr.No.202/2011 of PS Uppal, PRC No.08/2013, on the Court.the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Committed bySmt. Indira Priyadarshini , III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at LB

Nagar.

Description of AccusedMeka Papa Rao, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Aged 45 years, R/o.H.No.23-18, Sriram Nagar colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

ChargesU/Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and he is hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and unmarked case property if any is order to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySri. M. Ganga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri M. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel for Accused.

JUDGEMENT

The defacto complainant S. Narsinga Rao, S/o.Late Devaiah, lodged private complaint U/s.200 Cr.P.C before the III Metropolitan

Magistrate, RR District at LB Nagar for the offences punishable U/Sec. 3(1)

(x) of SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused, stating that he belongs to SC community and there are land disputes between him and the accused and in that regard on 21-04-2011 he went to MRO/ Tahsildar office at

Uppal and after pursuing the matter with the officials, while coming out of the said office, accused along with his followers came and abused him saying as “Emi raa neevu leader vaa, nee bathukentha nuvventha, Madiga lanjakoduka neevu endira maddatu palikedi ninnu nee kulanni konestha naa daggara antha dabbulu unnayi, neevu emi chesukuntavo chesuko lanjakoduka Madiga kulame intha” and beat him in front of witnesses namely Bathini Srihari, Kandiga Laxmi and Manda Narayana, in the said incident, he sustained injuries, then he lodged complaint at Uppal PS against the accused and four others, on the same day the police referred him to Gandhi Hospital for medical examination, thereafter he also took treatment in a private hospital namely Namaji clinic from 22-04-2011 to 24.04.2011. The police Uppal registered the case in Cr.No.202 of 2011 and the ACP , Malkajgiri recorded the statements of witnesses and the police have deliberately changed the statements of eye witnesses K.Laxmi and

Manda Narayana and filed final report suppressing the material facts of the offence, hence he filed protest petition and prayed to record the statements of witnesses and to register the case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

2.On the basis of private complaint, the III Metropolitan

Magistrate, RR District at LB Nagar recorded sworn statements of the

complainant and eyewitnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and based on the material, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused U/

Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 vide PRC No.08 of 2013 and committed the case to this court for trial and disposal according to law as the offence U/s.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is exclusively triable by this Court.

3.After hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, Charge U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 against Accused was framed, read over and explained to him U/s.228 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P6 were marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs. D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of the accused. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, for which his case is total denial and stated that he is running JNIT Engineering College at Ibrahimpatnam, there is a land dispute between him and the accused in regard to an extent of Ac.6.10 gts in Sy.No.210 of Kothapet village and the said litigation is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and no such incident happened on 20-04-2011 at MRO office, Uppal as alleged by PW.1 and he was falsely implicated in this case.

5.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the evidence on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:-

The case of prosecution is that Accused, not being a member of

Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, on 21-04-2011 near MRO office, Uppal, he intentionally insulted the complainant/PW.1, who belongs to SC- Madiga community within public view abusing him as “Madiga Lanjakodukaa, neeventha nee bathukentha” and the accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)

(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

8. Now the evidence of prosecution witnesses is referred to as follows:

PW1 (S. Narsinga Rao) is defacto complainant and victim in this case.

According to PW.1, he belongs to SC-Madiga community and doing hotel business. He know the accused. There is land dispute between him and the accused and he obtained stay order from Hon'ble High Court and he constructed a house in Dwarakapuri colony at Dilsukhnagar about 20 years ago and he let the said house for rent and he is residing at Golnaka since his childhood and the house in Dwarakapuri colony is in dispute with the accused. On 20-04-2011, four or five persons came from MRO office to measure land in Dilsukhnagar and the local people informed him over telephone, then he rushed to his house at

Dilsukhnagar and found the officers measuring the land and informed that on the instructions of MRO, they are going to dismantle the house as it was in dispute. PW.1 further stated that he informed them that he obtained stay order from the Hon'ble High Court, then the officials advised him to come to MRO office with all the documents on the next day. Accordingly on 21-04-2011 he went to MRO office with necessary documents along with neighbours Srihari,

Narayana, Laxmi and others. At that time MRO was not available, after one and half hours, MRO came to the office, he submitted stay order and all the documents, on the advise of MRO, he gave copies to VRO. On the instructions of VRO, he submitted latest copy of stay order obtained through internet. He asked the VRO that they are frequently coming and disturbing them in spite of submitting stay orders, he came outside the MRO office, held a press meet showing the stay orders. At that time, Accused along with four or five persons came and abused him saying as “Emi raa Madiga Lanjakoduka, nuvvu leader vaa, nuvvendi raa maddathu palikedi, nuvventha nee bathukenta, nee Madiga kulame intha, nee kulaanni konestha, naa daggara antha dabbu undi raa”. Two persons twisted his hands to back side, Accused and two others beat on his chest, face and back with hands and caught hold his shirt collar. His shirt was torn, then he escaped and went to the police station and gave complaint. Srihari, Narayana and Laxmi are eye witnesses to the incident. Then CI of police sent two constables to MRO office to verify the incident, the accused escaped in car, the police referred him to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. Later he got treated at private hospital. CI of police advised him to compromise the matter.

Subsequently ACP recorded his statement and other witnesses. The accused

Papa Rao also got registered case against him. subsequently his case was closed by the ACP, then he filed protest petition (Ex.P1) and the court recorded his statement. Ex.P2 is written complaint Dt.21-04-2011 at PS Uppal, Ex.P3 is the requisition of police to Gandhi Hospital for medical examination, Ex.P4 is out patient ticket issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, Dt.21-04-2011, Ex.P5 is two medical prescriptions, Dt.22-04-2011 and 28-04-2011 and medical certificate, Dt.24-04-2011 issued by Namaji clinic, Golnaka and Ex.P6 is the caste certificate of complainant issued by Tahsildar, Amberpet stating that the accused belongs to SC-Madiga community.

In cross-examination, PW.1 stated that he purchased house plot in

Sy.No.210 at Dilsukhnagar from Bharathi and Sujatha and the said persons purchased the plot from GPA holder Venkateshwar Rao. Sriramulu gave GPA to

Venkateshwar Rao. He verified the documents while purchasing the plot from

Bharathi and Sujatha, but the said persons did not register the plot in his name.

PW.1 admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he purchased plot in Sy.No.210 from Bharathi and Sujatha and he does not know the Special Court under Land Grabbing Prohibition Act in IA No.200/2009 in

LGOP No.183/1996, Dt.04-09-2014 declared Bharathi and Sujatha as land grabber and on 14-03-2010, the MRO, Uppal conducted panchanama and the

MRO delivered possession of plot to Accused under the panchanama (Ex.D1).

PW.1 stated that his signature was obtained by the MRO on Ex.D1 by force.

PW.1 admitted that he has not filed any complaint against the MRO and Police authorities as they have obtained his signatures on Ex.D1 by force.

It was elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 that he filed case against RDO, MRO and police authorities before the Hon'ble High Court. The learned defense suggested PW.1 to say the date, month and particulars of said complaint before the Hon'ble High Court. PW.1 stated that he cannot say on which date, month and year he filed the case and its number. PW.1 further admitted that he has not filed stay order copy before the court and the officers did not serve notices on him on 20-04-2011, when they came to his house and he did not file contempt case against the MRO and complaint before the District

Collector as the MRO is going to demolish his house in spite of stay orders from the Hon'ble High Court. PW.1 admitted that he did not mention in complaint (Ex.P2 and Ex.D2) that the accused and two other persons beat him on his chest, face and back on his hands and two persons twisted his hands to back side when he conducted press meet in front of MRO office and at that time B. Srihari, G.

Krishna, Vijay Bhaskar, Venkatesh Goud, K. Laxmi and Manda Narayana witnessed the incident. PW.1 further admitted that he did not hand over his torn shirt to the police. PW.1 further admitted that he did not state before the

ACP that CI of police forced him to compromise the matter. PW.1 further admitted that accused also filed complaint against him in Cr.No.204/2011 at PS

Uppal and in that case he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. PW.1 admitted that Ex.P4 out patient ticket issued by Gandhi Hospital is not disclosing that there are external injuries and he has not mentioned the name of private clinic in his complaint (Ex.P1).

PW.2 (Vijay Bhaskar) is said to be an eye witness to the incident. PW.2 deposed that he is working as Press Reporter in Vaartha media and on 21-04- 2011 at 02.30 pm, he was called to the MRO office, Uppal for press meet at 03.30 pm, then he took photographs of PW.1 while submitting memorandum to the MRO, as the MRO did not accept memorandum of PW.1. They held a press meet out side the MRO office, after press meet, he went to parking place, then he heard shouts and noticed that the accused beat PW.1 saying as “Madiga lanjakodukaa, neevu emanukuntunnavu raa”. PW.1 asked the accused Papa Rao kottoddu. Two or three persons came to the scene of offence along with the accused in a car. PW.1 escaped and went to nearby police station. Thereafter one constable came and enquired about the incident. His statement was recorded by ACP and subsequently his statement was recorded by the III

Metropolitan Magistrate.

In cross-examination, PW.2 stated that he went to the MRO office, Uppal on the phone call of Mr. Thirupathi Reddy, Area Reporter to attend press meet in connection with some land issues. He cannot say the names of newspaper reporters, who attended press meet along with him and he cannot say the car number of accused. PW.2 admitted that he has not stated to the Investigating officer (ACP) that the accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste and he came to

MRO office on the phone call of Thirupathi Reddy, Area Reporter and he took photographs of PW.1 while submitting memorandum to the MRO and the MRO did not accept the memorandum of PW.1 and after press meet, the accused came to the scene of offence along with two or three persons and abused PW.1 in the name of caste as in Ex.D4 (relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement).

PW.3 (Venkatesh Goud) is said to be an eye witness to the incident. PW.3 deposed that on 21-04-2011 at 04.00 pm, he went to the MRO office to get ration card, when he came outside the office, he noticed one person get down from the car and tried to snatch papers from the hands of PW.1, PW.1 refused to give the papers, then the person by name Papa Rao abused PW.1 in the name of caste saying as”Madiga lanjakoda, mee kulam inthe raa, mee kulaanni kone capacity naa thaana undi raa” and fisted PW.1 on his stomach. Three persons came along with accused in the car also beat PW.1, PW.1 escaped to the police station, which is adjacent to scene of offence and he was examined by the police in regard to the incident.

In cross-examination, PW.3 stated that he is handicapped and went to the

MRO office on his tricycle to get ration card. At the time of incident, several persons gathered and he does not know PW.1 and the accused prior to the incident. PW.3 admitted that he has not stated before the III Metropolitan

Magistrate that the accused abused PW.1 saying as “Madiga Lanjakoduka, mee

kulaani kone capacity naa thaana undi ra”. PW.3 admitted that he has stated to the ACP, Malkajgiri that on 09-05-2011 he went to tea stall in front of MRO office gate, then one person came and requested him to give statement before police informing his name as Narsinga Rao and the accused abused him in the name of caste and he has stated before the ACP that on the date of incident at about 05.00 pm, when he came to the MRO office from Indian Bank, Uppal, he noticed an altercation between two unknown persons and one person’s shirt was torn in the said altercation and he does not know for what reasons they had quarrel as in Ex.D5 (relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement).

9.The learned counsel for the accused has argued that there is land disputes between the accused and complainant/PW.1 and the matter is still pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on 14-03-2010, possession of house at Kothapet (H.No.1-10-111/A) was handed over to the accused under cover of panchanama (Ex.D1) by the complainant in the presence of MRO and panch witnesses, but till today the complainant/Pw.1 is continuing the land litigation in

Supreme Court without having any right and on 14-04-2011 no such incident was happen before the MRO office, uppal as alleged by Pw.1 and as per ex.P1 complaint, one Bathini Srinhari, Kandiga Laxmi and Manda Narayana are eye witnesses to the incident, PW.1 failed to examine any of these witnesses, surprisingly Pws.2 and 3 are introduced as eye witnesses to the alleged incident and there is no corroboration in the version of Pws.2 and 3 in regard to the alleged abuses in the name of caste, hence their evidence may be discarded.

10.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that after conducting thorough enquiry and scrutinizing the statements of several witnesses and after collecting necessary documents from the MRO Uppal, the

Assistant commissioner of police, Malkajgiri division closed the case of PW.1 on the ground lack of evidence and filed final report (Ex.D3) on 09-06-2011. There are several improvements in the versions of PW.1 in regard to alleged incident.

In view of civil disputes pending between the accused and PW.1, it is not at all safe to convict the accused basing on the sole testimony of PW.1 and prayed to acquit the accused for the charge U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

11. In support of his contention, the learned defense counsel placed reliance upon a Judgment in the case of “Budapap and others Vs.

State of AP Rep by Public Prosecutor, Hight Court of Hyderabad”, wherein the Hon'ble Hight Court held that the utterances, which were said to be made clearly indicates that on account of property dispute, the complainant has bent upon involving the petitioners in an offence under the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act. In the instant case, admittedly a civil suit in respect of land has been pending between the defacto complainant and the petitioners and utterances in the name of caste were allegedly made by the petitioners in connection with the land dispute. Whenever there is a dispute between the parties in relation to the property and a complaint has been made alleging commission of offence U/Sec.3(1)(x) of

SC ST (POA) Act, 1989, the Court is under a duty to scrutinize the allegaions with great care and circumspection. The reason is there is every possibility for the accused being implicated in the case on account of civil disputes.

12.As per the version of PW.1 that on 21-04-2011, when he went to

MRO office, Uppal along with B. Srihari, K. Laxmi and M.Narayana and after submitting land documents to the MRO, he came out side the office, conducted press meet in front of MRO office, then the accused came in car, along with two other persons , beat him by abusing as “Madiga lanjakodukaa neeventha, nee bathukenta”, immediately he rushed to near by police station, and several persons witnessed the incident. But the CI of police pressurized him to compromise the matter with the accused, the police changed the statements of witnesses and closed the case.

13.PW.1 got examined PW.2/ Vijay Bhaskar and PW.3/Venkatesh Goud as eye witnesses to the incident. As seen from Ex.D2 complaint, Dt.22-04-2011,

Pw.1 did not mention the date of incident, the location of MRO office, conducting press meet before the office and the name of PW.2 as eye witness to the incident. Further in Ex.D2, he did not mention that there is land disputes between him and the accused and he obtained stay orders from the Hon’ble

High Court, further he did not mention the names of B. Srihari, K. Laxmi and M.

Narayana accompanied him to the MRO office on the date of incident. Further as seen from the statement of PW.3, Dt.09-05-2011 recorded by the ACP,

Malkajgiri division, which was marked under Ex.D5 that on the date of incident i.e., on 24-04-2011, while he was returning from Indian Bank, at about 04.30 to 05.00 pm, he observed a scuffle between two persons and they are quarreling with each other by caught holding their shirts and public gathered there.

Subsequently PW.1 came to him and requested him to give evidence on his behalf stating that the said person is dismantling their houses by obtaining stay and informed the name of accused as Papa Rao.

14.As seen from Ex.D4 (relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW.2) it appears that on 21-04-2011 at about 04.00 pm, PW.2 came to the MRO office, Uppal to attend press meet and witnessed two persons quarreling with each other and he does not know their names and after few days i.e., on 16-05- 2011, PW.1 came to him and requested to give evidence on his behalf informing the name of accused as Papa Rao and he does not know for what reasons, they quarreled. As seen from the statements of Pws.2 and 3, PW.1 and the accused quarreled with each other in front of MRO office, but they did not speak any specific abuses uttered by the accused in the name of caste as alleged by PW.1.

Further it can be observed from the cross-examination of PW.1 that he purchased house plot in Sy.No.210 from Bharathi and Sujatha under private sale deed and the said persons are declared as land grabbers. Though PW.1 stated that he obtained stay orders from the Hon’ble High Court and the MRO, Uppal obtained his signature on Ex.D1 by force, he did not submit any documentary proof in that regard. PW.1 further admitted that he did not lodge any complaint against the MRO and CI of police, who pressurized him to settle the matter with the accused. In the absence of reliable evidence in regard to the alleged offence, I am of the considered opinion that it is not at all safe to convict the accused basing on the sole testimony of PW.1.

15.The learned Defense counsel also relied upon another

Judgement in the case of “Parsa Somaiah and others Vs. State of AP and

another, 2015 (1) ALD (crl. 143)”, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that there is every possibility of accused in implicating the cases in respect of property disputes between parties, it has to be extremely cautious before accepting allegations.

In the case of “Ch.Srinivas, Appellant Vs. State (Respondents)” dt:18-12- 2013 the Hon'ble High Court of AP observed that object of prevention of atrocities Act, 1989 is to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The provisions of the Act however cannot be used as a weapon to settle personal scores against the members of non-scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe or to settle the property dispute with them or to wreak vengeance. If such a course is allowed, the very object of the act would be defeated. The court has to scrutinize the allegations made in the complaint or

First Information Report with care and Circumspection and to find out as to whether the allegations are trustworthy or manifested with malafides.

16. In view of long standing land disputes between PW.1 and the accused, relying on the principles rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned Judgments, I am of the considered opinion that it is not at all safe to convict the accused basing on the interested testimony of

PWs.1 to 3. Hence Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt entertained by this Court for the charge U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 the

Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt entertained by this Court.

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, he is hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled and unmarked property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of December,

2018.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW1 S. Narsinga Rao Nil PW2 Vijaya Bhaskar PW3 Venkatesh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Protest petition Ex.P2: CC of complaint Dt.21-04-2011 Ex.P3: CC of requisition to Gandhi Hospital, Dt.21-04-2011 Ex.P4: Out patient ticket Ex.P5: 2 medical prescriptions and medical certificate Ex.P6: caste certificate

DEFENSE:

Ex.D1: panchanama conducted by MRI, Uppal, Dt.14-03-2010 Ex.D2: complaint lodged by PW.1, Dt.22-04-2011 Ex.D3: Final report in Cr.No.202/2011, Dt.09-06-2011 Ex.D4: relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.D5: relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Read by:

Compared by: