Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. LAAS No.566 of 2017 and LAAS No.308 of 2016 arise out of reference Court order in LAOP No.13 of 2012, one by HMDA another by claimant. While HMDA contests the enhancement to 30,000/- per square yard, the claimant seeks further enhancement. The claimant wants same compensation as determined by another reference Court in LAOP No.15 of 2012, i.e., 46,960/- per square yard.

3. We have heard learned counsel Sri Vivek Jain for claimants and learned standing counsel Sri Y.Rama Rao for HMDA.

4.1. According to learned counsel, at about the same time, the HUDA conducted auction of house plots in Nandagiri Hills layout which were sold at far higher price i.e., at about 80,000/- per square yard. Similarly, the HMDA has conducted auction with base price at 4.50 crores and secured even upto 15 crores per acre in the property called as 'Golden Mile' in Kokapet village. This property is 10 KMs away from the location of subject lands and comparatively less developed. When such is the potentiality of lands in Nandagiri Hills and Kokapet, there is no justification to pay far less compensation to the lands located in a fully developed area abutting the main road connecting various places in and around Shilparamam. Several Software companies were already established in and around the subject properties in addition to Hitec City and NIFT at a stone's throw away. Therefore, the lands owned by the claimants would have fetched far more money in the open market than 46,960/-. He would further submit that there is no justification of granting less than 46,960/- and for the HMDA to contest the compensation determined by the reference Court in LAOP No.15 of 2012. 4.2. He would further submit that the property located in Sy.No.64 fetched 55,000/- per square yard. Sy.No.64 is very near to Sy.Nos.68 and 69 and location is also similar i.e., on the main road and in fact location of the lands of claimants is far better as compared to land in Sy.No.64. The reference Court in LAOP No.15 of 2012 rightly relied upon the lands located in Sy.No.64 to grant compensation of 46,960/- per square yard and the other reference Court in LAOP No.13 of 2012 erred in not considering the same by holding as not proximate. Proximity does not mean it should be adjacent, but should be located in the same developed area. 4.3. According to learned counsel, within few months of Section 4(1) notification, high value transactions have taken place in Sy.No.64 and those transactions clearly point out to the potentiality of the land. 4.4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the following decisions:

8. It is important to note that in the instant case no conflicting sale deeds are relied upon by the HMDA before the reference Court and in these appeals to show that the market value is indeed lower than the claimants have urged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovind Das (supra) held that award of Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as judgment. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the reference Court unless produced and proved before it. No documents are marked on behalf of HMDA to show that the market value of claimants' properties is far less. It has only marked the award. On the other hand, the claimants marked certain sale deeds in comparable lands to justify his claim for enhancement, accepted by the reference Courts. Where the claimants produce sale deeds in comparable land, showing the market value as much higher, then the Court must infer and grant higher compensation in the absence of contrary evidence.

9. In the light of the judgment in Lal Chand it can be concluded that the sale transactions of adjacent lands produced by the claimants have to be given due weight. It is apt to note that the HMDA has not disputed these as unreliable evidence by bringing on record any acceptable material to show that they do not reflect true market value. Only pleaded case of HMDA was that the sales are not in same survey number.

10. In both references, claimants placed heavy reliance on location of their properties, the potentiality of their properties, and high value secured by HMDA while selling house plots in Nandagiri Hills and in Golden Mile plots in Kokapet. According to claimants in and around their plots several leading Sofrware companies have established their offices, such as Satyam (later become Tech Mahindra), TCS, Raheja Mind Space, Google, Cybergate, Cyber Pearl, etc., and NIFT and Hitech City buildings are also in the vicinity and prevailing market value at the time of acquisition was 1,00,000/- per square yard. Before both reference Courts the claimants relied on same precedent decisions.